Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Wed

07

Mar

2007

Transcript and Audio of Libby Grand Jury testimony March 24, 2004
Wednesday, 07 March 2007 11:30



P R O C E E D I N G S
Whereupon,
I. LEWIS LIBBY
was called as a witness and, after first being duly sworn by
the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, was examined and testified
as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Libby.

A. Good morning.

Q. And we're going to go — the first break will be at
10:45, but if you need a break sooner than that, let us know.
I'd just like to briefly re-advise you of all your
constitutional rights, which is that, again, you have the
right to refuse to answer any question to which a truthful
answer would tend to incriminate you. Do you understand that
right? You just have to say yes or no.

A. Oh, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Yes, sir.

Q. And secondly, obviously even though you answered
questions the last time, you still have the right to refuse to
answer questions this time or change your mind at any time.
Do you understand that?

A. Yes, sir.


Q. And obviously, you still have a right to counsel.
And in fact, you are represented by Mr. Tate, the same
attorney as last time. Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And you understand that you have a right to ask for
a reasonable break, to step out of the room and consult with
Mr. Tate if you'd like. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you also understand that your testimony is under
oath and further that based upon your conduct, in particular
contact with reporters, your conduct is the subject of
investigation by this Grand Jury, as it was last time. Do you
understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And as we confirmed prior to you appearing —
reappearing here this morning with your attorney, you remain
the same status as a subject. You understand that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And are you ready to proceed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say, sir, that following
your last Grand Jury appearance which I believe was March 5th
of this year, just earlier this month, that you had a
conversation with your attorney and relayed to your attorney
that there were certain things that you wanted to correct or
amend following your testimony?

A. Yes, sir. I had additional recollections based on
some of the questions you asked me.

Q. And is it your understanding that your attorney then
called me and told — advised me, my office, that in fact you
had two things you wanted to clarify, and that again this
morning we met briefly and you clarified those two matters?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And now what I'd simply like to do is forget
you talked to me before and just explain to the Grand Jury the
two different areas you wanted to clarify.

A. Yes, sir. You asked me about conversations with
Undersecretary Marc Grossman, and at the time I couldn't
remember any such discussion because I was trying to remember
a serious discussion with him about this topic. One of your
questions though had to do with whether I thought State had
sent Under — had sent Ambassador Wilson on this mission which
was so far off the mark in terms of what I thought at the time
that it stuck in my mind and I couldn't think about how — I
couldn't understand how that misunderstanding could come
about. And then I — in the middle of the night I remembered
that I had joked with Undersecretary Grossman about this, not
a serious discussion but a joke, and I can relay for you, if
you wish, how that joke came about and what it was.

Q. Sure.

A. Ribbing is probably a better word.

Q. Okay.

A. In the — I have to go back in times to — so that
you understand how it began. In, in the summer of 2002,
before President Bush went to the U.N. and challenged the U.N.
to respond seriously to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and
his unwillingness to — at that point admit inspectors and
abide by his obligation to turn over weapons of mass
destruction, there was a debate within the interagency,
meaning State Department, Pentagon, White House, about what,
what type of resolution — what resolution and what type of
resolution we would need from the U.N. And one of the issues
was if we were going to go the U.N. and ask the U.N. to get
inspectors to Iraq readmitted, what sort of rights would we
need? And the Vice President asked me to get the interagency
together to determine, if you're going to go into Iraq and
inspect for weapons, as difficult as that is, what is — what
are the rights that you would want, what are the authorities
you would want the inspectors, the U.N. inspectors, to have,
to have a reasonable shot at finding something given how
difficult it would be since he had hidden all his weapons.
This was the belief, the understanding at the time, that he
had made great efforts to hide things.
So I went to the interagency, to the NSC, and they
went out to the interagency and said, we would like to get a
study going of what are the types of rights you would need if
you were a U.N. inspector. What would you most want to have
if you could have the best set of rights you could possibly
have? I received word back from some people on the NSC that
Undersecretary Grossman had refused to participate, and he —
his view was that we couldn't get an ideal set of rights and
that he told the NSC that I was asking for this solely in an
attempt to get a long list that couldn't be achieved and then
to leak it, give it to the press to embarrass Secretary
Powell. That was not true and it was not why the Vice
President had asked me to go develop this list. It was in
order to get the best possible rights for the U.N. But it was
bothersome that he was not only not just calling me and
saying, hey, what's this about, but talking to people in the
NSC and accusing us, in effect, of, of putting this request in
bad faith when it was a request in good faith to find out what
does the U.N. need.
Eventually we went ahead with the study as best we
could. The State Department participated only up to the point
of what they thought the Secretary was likely to get, or
something like that.
That was, as I said, the fall of '02. Now, let me
skip forward to spring, or whenever it was that we were — I
was in the SIT room. I recall now being in the SIT room with
Undersecretary Grossman. We were waiting for a DC to begin,
or we were waiting for them to change out between an old one
and a new one.

Q. Let me just stop you there. When you say "DC", do
you mean Deputies Committee Meeting?

A. I'm sorry, yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. A Deputies Committee. And we were standing there
and just waiting for it to go. And I — to fill the time, I
ribbed Undersecretary Grossman by saying something like this
guy who went out to Niger was one of yours. And he smiled and
said, no, not one of ours, one of theirs, and pointed down the
table towards where the CIA officer usually sits in the
Interagency Meeting. And I said, but he was an ambassador,
meaning he was, you know, formerly at least at one point a
State Department person, and I was ribbing him about basically
that a State Department person had been leaking something when
he had been nine months before accusing us. And then, then I
said something about it's a, it's a sad state of affairs when
the CIA — again, this was another ribbing again or — it's a
sad state of affairs when the CIA has to get their own
ambassador to send to a country to ask questions about what
our embassy could be asking about, in effect. Again, it was
just a joke. And Grossman — Undersecretary Grossman said
something or other. The ambassador in Niger was a woman. I
don't recall her name. But I said something else to him,
like, did she know that he had been sent out there, or
something like that. And that's what I recall from the, from
the conversation. It was mostly, you know, filling time
getting ready for another meeting, and none of it was I
thinking of a serious discussion since the one thing that was
clear was that the CIA had sent, had sent this ambassador out
there. So that was my — that's my recollection.

Q. Do you know when this was in terms of the — there
was a Pincus article that came out on May 6th, and which
referred to a former ambassador, but not by name. And then
later on there was a June 12th Pincus article. Do you know
where in this time frame this, this conversation would have
occurred with Undersecretary Grossman?

A. I don't. I think it was a Kristof article on May
6th. You may have —

Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I meant to say Kristof.

A. I don't know, I thought you said Pincus. But in any
case, the May 6th article referred to an ambassador. I don't
recall, I don't recall where it was. I, I remember that it
was a session and standing next to him in the SIT room.

Q. Would you place this conversation in May or June as
opposed to July of 2003? And, and I mis-spoke. It was
Kristof in May and Pincus on June 12th, and obviously you had
the Wilson op-ed on July 6th. Do you know if it was before or
after Wilson himself had come out by name?

A. I think it was before Wilson had come out. I think
it was in the first half of June I would say.

Q. And was this a single conversation with Mr. Grossman
about this?

A. Yes, that's all I remember.

Q. Do you know if you ever had a conversation about the
topic of this ambassador, whether you mentioned his name as
Wilson or not, where you asked him to find something out and
then he got back to you?

A. No. No, I don't remember anything about that. And
I don't think I mentioned his name in that conversation
because I don't think I knew it at that point.

Q. And was there any discussion during that
conversation as you recall it about whether or not this
ambassador's wife had worked at the CIA?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. And when you had this conversation how did Mr.
Grossman appear to take your comment? Seriously or lightly?

A. I thought he understood it lightly.

Q. And is that the only conversation you recall about
the topic of the ambassador traveling to Niger with Mr.
Grossman during May, June and July of 2003?

A. It's the only one that I recall, yeah.

Q. So we're clear, you had no conversation with Mr.
Grossman ever telling you that the ambassador had a wife who
worked at the CIA, at any time?

A. I don't recall him ever telling me that.

Q. Now, you also — there was a second part of your
testimony you wanted to clarify or amplify?

A. Yes. You asked me about a lunch with Ari Fleischer
on July 7, the day after Ambassador Wilson's column came out.
And you also asked me about the gaggle in the morning, and I
had sort of forgotten that our lunch followed the morning — a
morning gaggle where he had made points about the Vice
President. And I recall that somewhere in the course of that
lunch, the first portion of it, as I recall, I thanked him for
having covered the points in the gaggle, so I did discuss that
part of it.

Q. Okay. And is it still your recollection that you
also discussed his future employment at that time, on July
7th —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — with Ari Fleischer?

A. Yeah.

Q. And that you discussed the Miami Dolphins with Ari
Fleischer on July 7?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Still no recollection at all of ever discussing the
fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA with Mr. Fleischer?

A. I don't think so, sir. I have no more — I hade no
more recollection after our discussion. The only thing that I
recalled anew was the bit about the gaggle.

Q. You have no recollection of ever telling Mr.
Fleischer that this is either hush-hush, or
Q.t. or words to
that effect, that Wilson's wife works out at the CIA?

A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. And no discussion that you recall where either one
of you implied with Wilson had obtained the assignment to go
to Niger as a result of perceived nepotism?

A. No, sir, not that I recall.

Q. And — now, you also testified — well, let me go
back to June 6th, and we did not ask you about this last time,
but your calendar reflected that you had a meeting on June 6th
with Richard Armitage. And do you recall if you ever
discussed the topic of Mr. Wilson's wife's employment at the
CIA with Richard Armitage?

A. Is this June 6th a meeting at the State Department
with him?

Q. I'm not sure where the meeting was. And forget the
June 6th date. Did you at any time ever discuss Wilson's
wife's employment with Mr. Armitage?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. And how close are you to Mr. Armitage?

A. I mean, I see him a lot. I'm not that — you know,
we don't, we don't go out socially, but I see him in DCs,
Deputies Committee meetings, once every couple weeks. For a
while it was more frequent but we don't go as much as we used
to.

Q. And how long have you known Mr. Armitage?

A. I've known him for years, 1982, 1983, 1984 I knew
him.

Q. Did you represent Mr. Armitage at one time?

A. I did, when I was practicing law I represented him
with regard to a libel matter, he was being libeled.

Q. Would that be in or about 1989? Was that a dispute
with Ross Perot on something?

A. Yes, it was. The libel was separate from Ross
Perot. Yes, there was also a dispute in that same time period
with Ross Perot. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know if there ever came a time if you
ever discussed with Mr. Armitage any outstanding requests for
information with — from, from Mr. Grossman when Mr. Grossman
was on vacation?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. And do you recall in the June time frame ever
receiving a document from the White House Situation Room, a
fax that was to be hand-delivered to you and to John Hannah
which contained a document that the CIA had prepared in
earlier 2003? Does that ring a bell with you at all?

A. I don't know about the Hannah being on a document.
I did receive documents from the CIA, you know, that came
through the SIT room, and those — if I retained them, they
would be in my documents.

Q. Okay. And by the way, I think that's the first time
I mentioned the name John Hannah. Can you tell us what John
Hannah's role is in the Office of Vice President?

A. John Hannah works in the National Security Affairs
Office of the Office of the Vice President, and he's a
specialist on greater Middle Eastern Affairs.

Q. Okay. And in the reporting chain, who does he
report to?

A. He reports to my Deputy and then to me, I suppose.

Q. And who — what's the name of your Deputy that Mr.
Hannah reports to?

A. It varied. Prior to June of '03 it was Eric
Edelman, now Ambassador, Ambassador Eric Edelman. And since
about that time Toria Nuland is my new Deputy.

Q. How would you spell —

A. Victoria.

Q. Oh, Victoria?

A. Victoria Nuland.

Q. Okay.

A. Nuland is N-u-l-a-n-d; Victoria is the traditional
spelling.

Q. Okay. And why don't I show you some documents
that — what we'll do is we won't mark them as exhibits.
We'll refer to the Bates Stamp Numbers so we have it for the
record, but this way we can deal with declassification issues
at a later time.

A. Okay. And they will be a series beginning 1456
forward, Katie, which would include page 1538, 1552. Okay,
show you a document.
MS. KEDIAN. 1538.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Let me start with 1456. In the meantime, I'll show
you 1445. Let me show you what's a document — it's Bates
Stamped 1445 and without getting into the contents it's from,
from John Hannah to the Vice President and concerning a CIA
paper on the Iraq/Niger/uranium deal. Do you recognize that?

A. I do, sir.

Q. Okay. And do you recall receiving it on or about
June 9th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall what it was that occasioned Mr.
Hannah to prepare this?

A. We had gotten a paper from the CIA. It was a very
long paper. I think it's attached here, eight single-spaced
pages with a lot of data in it, and a lot of dates and
meetings and discussions, and he undertook to summarize some
of the things that were in the CIA paper down to, I guess, two
and a half pages.

Q. Okay. And looking at page 1449, does that appear to
be a cover sheet of what the CIA transmitted to Congress in
April, 2003, regarding Iraq and Niger, and then the document
you described as an eight-page single-spaced document followed
behind it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then the document that Mr. Hannah prepared is a
summary of what was contained in the transmission from CIA to
Congress which included the eight page single-spaced
statement?

A. Yes, sir. This was a document not, not prepared for
us, but one they had prepared for Congress and we were getting
a copy of it.

Q. Right. So in, in early 2003, and specifically on
the date reflected on page 1449, April 3rd, the CIA gives
something to Congress, and if you look at the fax header on
1449 and 1450 it sounds like on June 9th you get a copy sent,
and the fax header seems to come from the Op Center to the
Vice President's Office, and then John Hannah, on June 9th
prepares this summary of the document?

A. I don't see the fax cover. I don't know what —

Q. We'll, we'll produce that later, I think. But
there's a June 9th fax sheet that says —

A. Okay.

Q. — please hand-deliver to yourself and Mr. Hannah.
So in other words, this was not something you received, to
your knowledge, in March when it was sent to Congress, this
was something you received on June 9th?

A. I did not — my, my recollection is I did not
receive it when it went to, to Congress.

Q. Let me show you a transmittal sheet. Actually,
that's a three page one — we'll show you — okay. If looking
at page 1450 — the handwriting on page 1456, the upper left
corner. Does that read, "Did CIA have it in their document?"
The handwriting?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know whose hand — whose printing that is?

A. I, I don't. It could be Hannah, but I don't know.

Q. Okay. Now, once Mr. Hannah prepared the summary
memo and attached the CIA memo from earlier that year, what
happened with this document? Were there any meetings
concerning it or discussions that you attended?

A. I don't recall any meetings about — specifically
about the document. I recall reading the document and
referring to it subsequently when I was, you know, talking
about this issue.

Q. Okay. And when you say subsequently, when would
that be?

A. In, in the weeks and months that followed as we were
looking at the uranium issue. There was some interest —
there were some interesting in points that I didn't know.

Q. Okay. And showing you what we'll mark by the Bates
Stamp Numbers 1472, does that appear to be a cover sheet —

A. Yes.

Q. — for Monday, June 9th, 2003?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. To Jenny Mayfield. And does it say, "Please pass to
Mr. Hannah and Mr. Libby ASAP?"

A. Yes.

Q. And does that appear to include the CIA transmittal
sheet to Congress from earlier that year, and then that eight
page document you referenced?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know if you discussed this with the Vice
President on or about June 9th when this was prepared?

A. I did discuss points in that memorandum with the
Vice President. I don't recall exactly when it was.

Q. Okay. And do you know if you discussed the identity
of the envoy who had gone from — who had been sent from the
United States, or the source, who had gone to Niger in 2002 to
investigate the yellowcake claims with Vice President?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know when you discussed that?

A. At various times it was discussed. I don't know if
it came up specifically with regard to this fax or not. The
fax refers to the envoy having gone in a paragraph, in the
course of the eight pages they talk about it, but I don't
recall whether this occasioned one of the discussions about,
you know, who is this envoy and how did he come to be sent and
that sort of thing.

Q. Okay. Let me show you a different but similar
document that is Bates Stamped 1537 in the lower right corner.
And do you recognize that document?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And what is this document?

A. I'm not as familiar with this document as I am with
this one. I studied this one more closely than this document.
I think I recognize this document from having seen something
like it in my files. There's a writing at the top which says,
"prepared by CIA," and I haven't read it just sitting here. I
don't recall when I last read it, if I ever read it fully, but
I see that it looks to be sort of like the document that you
showed me before where they're going through paragraph by
paragraph, different chronological events seemingly in order,
chronological order.

Q. And on 1537 there's handwriting that says, "prepared
by CIA" in the upper right corner, "received July 12th, '03,"
do you know whose handwriting that is?

A. I don't. It looks a little bit like the Vice
President's but I don't know whose handwriting it is.

Q. Okay. And if you turn to the second page, page
1538, and next to paragraph number six there's a handwriting
that says, "Wilson" with an underlining and a question mark.
And do you know whose handwriting that is?

A. I, I don't. Again, it might be the Vice President's
but I'm not sure.

Q. And looking at the cover sheet that had shown on
June 9th that said, "please pass to Mr. Hannah and Mr. Libby
ASAP," do you know if there's a particular event on June 9th
which I — which I'm referring to 1472, I've taken that away
from you. Seeing that the CIA sent a document over to the
office ASAP on June 9th, Mr. Hannah the same day prepared a
summary, do you know what it was that occasioned this ASAP
delivery of this CIA report of uranium and Niger?

A. I, I do not know. It is around the time that we
were doing the Pincus article, you know, preparing to talk to
Pincus, so it could be in relation to that, or it could just
be an inquiry, but I don't know. ASAP is not a particularly,
you know, hair on fire type marking, but I don't, I don't
know.

Q. You understand ASAP stands for "as soon as
possible"?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And whatever time it got to — over to the —
it says it was delivered at — it appears to be June 9, 2003.
I don't know if it has a — it doesn't appear to have a time.

A. It says 9:00 p.m. —

Q. At 9:00 p.m. And then the memo from John Hannah
that describes the information, CIA paper, and referring to
page 1445 again, is dated June 9th, 2003. And that would be a
two and a half page summary. So if in fact it got to — over
to the office at 9:00 p.m. on a Monday night in June, if Mr.
Hannah dated it correctly, he created a summary sometime
thereafter. So —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was during the time frame when you were
talking with the Vice President and others about how to
respond to Mr. Pincus' inquiries for an article he would
eventually publish on June 12th. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at the time did you know the name of the envoy
who had gone to Niger as being Mr. Wilson?

A. No, sir. Not the best I recall.

Q. And looking at — if we could pull out 1552. And do
you recall if you had a meeting, sat down with Vice President
Cheney and with Mr. Hannah concerning this between June 9th
and the time you spoke to Mr. Pincus?

A. I don't recall.

Q. And let me show you what's been marked as Bates
Stamps 1552, 1553. And again, we'll just mark it for the
record without admitting it so we can deal with classification
issues later. Is that a CIA cable concerning the trip that
Ambassador Wilson took to Niger —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — in 2002? And is there handwriting on the first
page?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does it say the word "Wilson"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know whose handwriting that is?

A. Again, it looks to me like it might be the Vice
President's.

Q. And do you recall ever discussing this cable with
the Vice President where he would have written down the name
Wilson?

A. I recall discussing the cable with the Vice
President. I don't recall him having written the name Wilson
on the cable while we talked about it, if that's what the —
if that's what your question means. I recall discussing the
Wilson cable, cable about Mr. — Ambassador Wilson with him.

Q. And what were the circumstances under which you
discussed the Wilson cable with the Vice President?

A. It probably came up — it came up multiple times.
Part of what came up about it is in this paragraph two which
is underlined by whoever wrote this where they say that Myoki,
the former Nigerian Prime Minister, related that an Iraqi
delegation had tried to make contact with the government of
Niger to open discussions for, I think what's called
"commercial relations" in here, which they understood to mean
uranium. You know, they don't make C.D. players in Niger.
"Commercial relations" was meant — they understood to mean to
purchase uranium.

Q. And so is it fair to say when the allegations came
out in the Kristof column and later in the Wilson piece, that
Wilson's trip had sort of debunked the sixteen words contained
in the State of the Union that one of the points the Vice
President and yourself wanted to make was that you believed
that Wilson's trip had sort of corroborated the sixteen words
to the extent that he had reported back that there had been
prior efforts to open commercial — or establish commercial
relations between Iraq and Niger?

A. Yes, sir. That's what we understood the Agency took
this — the Agency took that to mean, and from this it looks
that way to us too.

Q. Let me show you 1588. And is that another copy of a
cable containing information concerning a trip, the trip to
Niger by Ambassador Wilson even if it does not name — even
though it doesn't name Mr. Wilson in the text?

A. Yes, sir. I think it's the same cable, just a
different format.

Q. If you look at 1588, does that have some handwriting
in the upper right corner?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does that say "Joe Wilson"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is?

A. It looks like it could be the Vice President's. I
don't recognize the "J" but, you know, it could be the Vice
President's.

Q. Does the "Wilson" part look like the Vice
President's?

A. It looks more similar to the other writing we've
seen. Yes, sir.

Q. And let me show you what's been marked as 1784 Bates
Stamp. And if you look at 1784, does the text — if you're
looking at the text, does that appear to mirror page two of
the document we've been talking about? And I'll give you a
page to compare it to. Does the text appear to match 1475
which is the page two of that eight page single-spaced
document which the CIA had prepared in March of 2003, shared
with Congress and then was forwarded to the Office of Vice
President on June 9th?

A. Yes, sir. It looks like a different version of the
same thing.

Q. Okay. And does page 1784 in your right hand have
printing and handwriting in the left column?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does it say "Joe Wilson" in print, and then
underneath "Wilson" in script?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recognize the printing?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you recognize the script?

A. It looks like me.

Q. Okay. And do you know —

A. It looks like my writing.

Q. Looks like — okay, looks like your handwriting.
And the printing, does that look like your printing?

A. Does not.

Q. Okay.

A. It's too neat.

Q. Okay. So it would look like someone else printed
"Joe Wilson" and you handwrote "Wilson" underneath?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And does that look like anyone you
recognize — does the printing look like the printing of
anyone you recognize or familiar with?

A. No, sir —

Q. Okay. Does it look like the printing of either the
Vice President or Cathie Martin, or anyone else you work
closely with?

A. I don't know. We — I don't think it looks like
Cathie Martin, but I'm not really that familiar — we do have
some documents that have her writing on it. It's not mine.

Q. Okay.

A. It's too neat.

Q. So the printing on 1784 is not yours and you don't
know whose it is. The handwriting on 1784, "Wilson" appears
to be you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then the other ones we've shown before say
"Wilson", a number of them look similar and appear that they
could be the Vice President?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And seeing the various documents and various
iterations with a number of references to "Wilson" or "Joe
Wilson," does that refresh your recollection as to discussions
you may have had in the June time frame with the Vice
President about Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger?

A. Not more than the others. I don't know that the
writing happened — at least my writing happened — I don't
think happened in the June time frame.

Q. How often did you refer back to the June cables to
refresh what was in the cables and make notes as to what it —
you know, about, for example, Wilson?

A. Fairly frequently if I was about to engage about it
with someone. I would have to go look at it, or I would try
to go look at it to make sure that I was fresh on the
document.

Q. And who would you be engaging with that would cause
you to go back and refresh the document?

A. When I was — if I was going to go talk to a
reporter about it, or if I was getting ready to talk to a
reporter about it, about the Wilson trip, or if I was going to
go talk to the Vice President about it or anyone where we're
talking about the substance.

Q. And the last time we showed you a document that you
had dated as approximately June 12th which indicated a
discussion at that time with the Vice President where you
noted that he had indicated to you that the ambassador's wife
had worked at the functional office at the CIA, referred to as
CPD, the Counterproliferation Division. Do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know if you had reviewed some — any of
these documents, the Wilson cable or the June 9th report, with
Vice President Cheney at or about the time of the conversation
where he told you that the ambassador's wife worked at the
functional office in Counterproliferation?

A. Did I review the CIA document that's dated June 9
and the cover memo?

Q. Yes.

A. I mean, the transmittal dated June 9? Yes, that
would be at or about the time of that note which I was
guessing was some time around June 12. Before June 12
actually.

Q. And is it fair to say that before June 12 there was
a fair amount of discussion of the envoy's trip to Niger and,
and that discussion included the comments you recall where the
Vice President told you that this envoy's wife worked at the
CIA?

A. I'm sorry, I missed it. I didn't get —

Q. There was conversation during the early June time
frame between yourself and the Vice President where you were
discussing this envoy's trip to Niger. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And during that — those conversations you learned
from the Vice President that the envoy's wife worked at the
functional office concerning Counterproliferation at the CIA.
Correct?

A. I think I only learned that in, in one telephone
conversation from — I only had one — that I recall, I only
had one conversation about that point with the Vice President.
It was not a fuller discussion of the substance like this
cable. It was a very short discussion which was relaying to
me something he had learned. So, so not in the course of a
discussion about the cables particularly. It was a short
conversation and I only recall one on that.

Q. And is it fair to say that during the time frame you
were having discussions with the Vice President in preparation
for your speaking to Mr. Pincus who was going to write an
article for the Washington Post?

A. I think that was the discussion prior to my talking
to Pincus.

Q. Okay. And when you say that was the discussion, the
discussion —

A. The one, the one where I wrote the notes that you're
referring to.

Q. Okay. So the conversation reflected in the notes
where the Vice President advised you that the envoy's wife
worked at the CIA in Counterproliferation was a discussion you
had with the Vice President in preparation for your speaking
to Mr. Pincus?

A. Yes. There were two parts to that conversation.
There was a background session and then there were the points
that I was supposed to raise with Pincus. The point about the
wife was in the first part, physically on the paper anyway.
And the points for the — to raise with Pincus were at the
bottom of the page.

Q. And do you recall if your notes distinguished
between background and what to raise with Mr. Pincus when you
wrote them down?

A. Yes, they do to me.

Q. And did you ever have a discussion with Mr. — where
the Vice President told you either that you should or should
not tell Mr. Pincus about the envoy's wife's employment at the
CIA?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask the Vice President whether it was
appropriate if you could tell Mr. Pincus this fact?

A. No.

Q. And is it possible that you told Mr. Pincus that
fact?

A. No, I don't think I did.

Q. You don't recall doing so?

A. I don't recall doing so and I don't — I do not
recall doing so.

Q. And did you understand at the time that you were
legally prohibited from doing so?

A. No.

Q. And the last time we spoke you indicated that you
had a conversation with Judith Miller on July 8th. Is that
fair to say?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. About how long was that conversation?

A. An hour perhaps, maybe, maybe a little over.

Q. And you mentioned that prior to having that
conversation you had a discussion with Vice President Cheney
as to what you could discuss with Judith Miller?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And can you tell us when you had the conversation
with the Vice President and what concerns you raised, and what
he told you in response?

A. The Vice President and I discussed the need to get
into the public domain that the CIA National Intelligence
Estimate made it clear to recipients of the National
Intelligence Estimate that Iraq had been attempting to procure
uranium. This was similar to the point that the President
raised in the State of the Union in the famous sixteen words.
And despite the fact that there had been a lot of talk about
particular documents having been forged, the Vice President's
point was that the policy makers, he, had seen and had relied
upon the National Intelligence Estimate, which is sort of the
gold standard of the consensus view of all the intelligence
community, that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium. And
he felt that that point should get out because that's what he
understood at the time when the President gave his State of
the Union.
The National Intelligence Estimate was a classified
document at that point. It's a very — it's a long document.
The portion about uranium is short and there's some key
judgments at the front that were short, which are short
compared to the length of the document. And the problem in
letting people know what the National Intelligence Estimate
said on that was that it's a classified document. So we could
not talk to the press about it until it was declassified, and
I discussed that with the Vice President. It was — it's
within the purview of the President, as I understand, and I
was informed by the General Counsel to the Vice President's
Office, that the National Intelligence Estimate, or any other
document that's classified, can be declassified by the
President if he wishes. And so the Vice President thought we
should get some of these facts out to the press, but before it
could be done, the document had to be declassified. I had had
a conversation with David Addington that we talked about in
our last session when he relayed that. He had mentioned to me
a legal case. I had written down the name of the legal case.
I'd forgotten it the first time. I came back to him, had a
second conversation, wrote it down in my notes, reported to
the Vice President. I reconfirmed with David Addington about
this. And he then undertook to get, to get permission from
the President to talk about this to a reporter. He got the
permission. Told me to go off and talk to the reporter. My
recollection is that I did not accomplish it right away, and
he told me at one point to hold up, and then he came back and
said to go ahead. And so at that point I went ahead and
scheduled the meeting and had the discussion.

Q. Okay. Now, can you fix the date when you first
spoke to the Vice President about trying to get the facts out
from the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, and then you
in that conversation expressed your reservations because it
was a classified document?

A. No. I think there were several over a period of
time, none of them being long. It was not a long debate. But
there was several times it was talked about that, you know,
the NIE was clear, this cable was actually not persuasive even
to Director Tenet or the CIA as Director Tenet made clear in
his July 11th statement. When the entire NIE was
declassified, these portions of the NIE were declassified by
the Agency and then provided to the press on July 18, it was
clear from that text that it was all declassified. So there
were discussions about that. There were discussions about
getting the Agency to declassify it separately. There were
discussions with the Vice President all — for some time as I
recall. But again, not, not developed discussions. It was a
point that, you know, it would be good to have this out, but
it would have to be declassified. And I can't give you a
precise date for those.

Q. Okay. Let's walk backwards. July 18th was the date
that it became publicly available and declassified, is it your
understanding, of the NIE?

A. It became — these sections. Not the entire NIE.
Sections — the CIA declassified sections of the NIE in
advance of July 18. On July 18 it was passed out, I think.
So some time before that, the CIA did. The President had
already declassified some of it.

Q. And, and when you say the President had already
declassified it, you're referring to what you had been told by
Vice President Cheney as to the fact that the President gave
you permission to talk about parts of the NIE with Judith
Miller?

A. Yes, sir. I don't think the President knew Judith
Miller, but the — with, with the press. Yes, sir.

Q. And did the Vice President know Judith Miller at the
time he authorized you to discuss it?

A. Yes, I think — at one of the — before the final —
before I actually went and talked to Judith Miller I think he
knew it was Judith Miller I was going to talk to. Yes, sir.

Q. Focusing on your meeting on July 8th with Judith
Miller. How long before — was that a conversation you had
the day before with the Vice President where he asked you to
share the — some of the relevant materials from the NIE and
then you brought to his attention the classification issue?

A. There was a discussion with him the day before,
roughly the day before. It was not the first time we had
discussed the declassification issue, and I think by that
point the declassification issue, I think, was resolved. But,
but — if, if that's complete.

Q. Okay. When was it — was Judith Miller the first
reporter you, you discussed the NIE with?

A. The first reporter that I discussed the text of the
NIE with. Con — National Security Advisor Rice in mid-June
or so had been talking about the NIE having statements about,
you know, that it was the source and it was, you know, it was
clear that Iraq was seeking uranium or something like that.
She had been discussing that in June to the press and it was
reported in the press about the NIE. In terms of the first
discussion I ever had about, you know, the language of the
text, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. And the only, I think —

Q. Okay.

A. — prior to after the 18th.

Q. Okay. And with, with — was it your understanding
that you would show the text of the relevant portions of the
NIE to Judith Miller when you discussed it with the Vice
President?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you in fact show those relevant portions of
the text?

A. Talked it through with her and I think I gave it to
her, showed it to her, an excerpt.

Q. Okay. And when you showed it to her did you let her
read the relevant portions of the whole document or did you
have a redacted version?

A. Oh, no, redacted.

Q. And did she get to keep the redacted copy?

A. I think I gave her a page which had bullets from it,
not a xerox of it but bullets of it, I think, where it was
redacted and I think, I think what I showed her had country
names omitted. It was less than what I had been authorized to
share with her.

Q. Okay. Who created that document?

A. I did.

Q. Personally?

A. Yes. Well, you know, I, I didn't type it I don't
suppose, but I directed it to be done.

Q. Okay. So do you know who would have typed it?

A. Well, if I didn't type it, then I assume it would
have been Jenny Mayfield, my assistant.

Q. Do you type?

A. I do type.

Q. You're not big on e-mail I take it?

A. No. Not in this job. I was in my prior job.

Q. Okay. And when you type, do you type at a word
processor and print it out?

A. Yeah.

Q. In reviewing the documents for production for
discovery or compliance with the subpoenas, have you ever seen
a copy of the redacted document that you shared with Ms.
Miller?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. Well, I'm not sure exactly what I shared but I think
I have.

Q. And how long was the document in terms of pages?

A. A third of a page.

Q. And did you share that document with the Vice
President prior to sharing it with Judith Miller?

A. No, sir.

Q. So what was your understanding? What did the Vice
President tell you the limits were on what you could share
with Judith Miller from what was contained in the NIE?

A. I could talk to her about the uranium section of the
NIE and about some of the key judgments from the NIE which
made it clear that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass
destruction.

Q. And what was it that you understood was new in what
you could share with Judith Miller that hadn't been in the
public domain yet, hadn't been discussed by other government
officials?

A. The language of the NIE which was — which is quoted
in Director Tenet's statement on July 11th, was that Iraq had
begun to vigorously pursue, something like this, very close to
it. Iraq had begun to vigorously pursue the acquisition of
uranium or the procurement of uranium, something like that.

Q. So the phrase including, including the word
"vigorously" trying to obtain or procure uranium was what the
Vice President wanted you to get into the public domain
through Judith Miller?

A. Yes. Flat declarative statement that it was so.
And that there were other instances, I guess. There were
several countries mentioned. There were countries mentioned
in addition to Niger.

Q. And had anyone asked you, any other reporters asked
you, about the NIE prior to your July 8th conversation with
Judith Miller?

A. I don't recall any.

Q. You met with David Sanger from the New York Times on
July 2nd. Correct?

A. Uh-hum.

Q. Do you know if you discussed the NIE with David
Sanger at that time?

A. I don't recall. There are notes of that
conversation. I don't recall discussing it as I sit here. If
I did, it was in the general sense that Dr. Rice had discussed
it without reference to the particular language.

Q. And do you know if you had a conversation with the
Vice President before you talked to Mr. Sanger about whether
or not he wanted you to share some of the contents of the NIE
concerning Niger and uranium with David Sanger?

A. I probably alerted the Vice President that I would
be meeting with Sanger, but I don't think we discussed
anything about the specific language of the NIE at that point.

Q. And the fact that you're meeting with David Sanger
that did not trigger a conversation with the Vice President
about what your authority was to discuss classified documents.
Is that fair to say?

A. I don't know. We would have been discussing it in
that period. I don't know that the meeting with Sanger, with
David Sanger, was critical for that.

Q. Was it the meeting with Judith Miller, with a
reporter that would turn out to be Judith Miller, was that the
event that triggered your conversation with the Vice President
about sharing the content of a classified document and your
conversation with David Addington, the Counsel for the Office
of Vice President?

A. Again, I don't think so. I think more the other way
around. There, there was this controversy about the famous
sixteen words and uranium, and the implication that people
were drawing is that because the IAEA in March had discovered
that the documents were forged, somehow the President didn't
have a good faith belief that — and the people who put the
statement in the speech, which was not us, did not have a good
faith belief on — that Iraq was in fact seeking the — to
obtain uranium. And the NIE and other documents made it clear
that in fact the Agency was advising the policy makers that
Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Niger and so there was
a general discussion which went on during that week separate
and apart from the Judith Miller discussions with Director
Tenet to try and get the CIA to make a statement, you know, as
soon as possible that would lay out what was in the NIE and
the other documents that had been put forward, some of which
are detailed in this memorandum that you showed me earlier.

Q. Your conversations with the Vice President about
wanting to get information from the NIE out into the public
domain but having concerns about the classification issue, did
those take place in person with the Vice President?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that the whole issue of
the sixteen words took on an entirely different dimension
after the July 6th op-ed piece by Mr. Wilson, the July 6th
Meet the Press appearance, and then the July 7th statement
that appeared to step back from the sixteen words by Ari
Fleischer?

A. The statement from Ari Fleischer definitely changed
the atmosphere. It added to the heat. I mean, it was a lot
of heat to begin with which was what led Ari Fleischer to, to
make his statement.

Q. The, the discussions that led to sharing information
with Judith Miller, did they come as a result or did they come
after the July 6th op-ed by Wilson and the July 6th appearance
by Meet the Press — on Meet the Press by Mr. Wilson?

A. I think they preceded and followed the discussion,
the Wilson op-ed piece.

Q. And do you know when the Vice President eventually
told you that he had gotten permission from the President for
you to share this information with Ms. Miller? Was that after
July 6th?

A. I don't recall. I think it, I think it may have —
remember, I had this is recollection that there were — a
period when he said go ahead, and then a period when he said
stop, and go ahead. I don't recall how compressed that was.

Q. Did he give you a reason why he told you to stop
after he had first told you to go ahead?

A. No, I think he probably just — his sense of when
the right timing was. And then again, as I say, he then told
me to proceed again.

Q. Let me show you what we'll refer to in the record as
a document Bates Stamped 1746, which I believe are some of
your handwritten notes. Would you take a look at that page?
And as you'll see, there's an entry — I'll point to it,
three-quarters of the way down the page that appears to be
your symbol for the Vice President, a Y with the line over it.
And can you tell us what the rest of that entry says?

A. It's his instruction to me to telephone Judith
Miller —

Q. Okay.

A. — is how I read it.

Q. Is it the Vice President colon — and is the next
reference S.L. —

A. Yes.

Q. — meaning "Scooter" Libby?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then there's a symbol which I'll skip past in a
moment, and it says "Miller"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is the symbol a "T" with an arrow under, under
it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that your instruction to "telephone"?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do you recall that means? It's dated in
the upper left corner, as I understand, "July 8th, '02," but I
think, it's our understanding is that the '02 might be a typo,
and it's July 8th, '03.

A. Yes. I don't think that's my handwriting actually.
I think that may be Jenny's.

Q. Okay.

A. Jenny Mayfield. I'm sorry, but I lost the question
when I was thinking about the handwriting.

Q. Okay. And what did that reference mean?

A. It was the Vice President telling me to go ahead and
talk to Judith Miller.

Q. Okay, and is that, is that — as far as you
understand it, is that the final instruction to speak with
her?

A. I don't know that from this. It looks like it based
on the date at the top of the page, if the date's accurate.

Q. And do you know when you arranged to have — where
does Ms. Miller work?

A. She works in, I think, Washington and New York. But
I'm not sure.

Q. Do you know where she spends most of her time?

A. I don't. I would guess New York but I'm not sure.

Q. And do you know when you spoke with her if she was
in town or if she made a trip down from New York to come see
you?

A. I think it was set up the day before and I think she
was either in Washington or going to be in Washington, so I
don't think it was a special trip, but I'm not sure. I mean,
this is what I think she told me.

Q. And so was the, the meeting being set up the day
before, July 7th, and with your note being July 8th that the
Vice President told you to telephone Judith Miller, is it your
understanding that the initial decision to tell her would have
been on July 7th and it would have been reaffirmed again on
July 8th?

A. That could be.

Q. And do you know if you spoke to Judith Miller on
July 7th in advance of this meeting yourself?

A. I think I spoke to her on the phone to set up the
meeting. I recall my having spoken to her not the same day,
the day before, but it's possible it was the same day. Just a
recollection.

Q. And this meeting did not happen at the Office of the
Vice President. Is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Where did you meet?

A. We met at the St. Regis Hotel which is, you know —
I think it's the closest hotel to the — in the, in the coffee
shop of the hotel, or the restaurant.

Q. And is there a reason you met at her hotel rather
than at the — at your office?

A. I think I wanted to meet with her at lunch, over
lunch, but my schedule or her schedule couldn't do the lunch
so we met for coffee instead.

Q. And isn't it fair to say, it's easier usually for
you if the people come to your office and you sit in your
office and meet and take less time out of your day than for
you to go out to see a reporter outside the building?

A. It's easier but I often go out. Yes, it is easier.

Q. And when you meet with reporters, would you say you
more often meet them inside your building versus you going to
meet them at a hotel or restaurant?

A. It depends on the purpose really. Many times
reporters want to come to see me to get — say they're doing a
profile piece on the, on the Vice President, meaning a piece
about his background or what he does every day type, you know,
one of these soft news stories. Often those people, we'll
have them come in, I see them in the office. When I want to
discuss sort of more of how the administration is approaching
an issue, some type of an off-record discussion, I often
choose to do that over lunch. It's part of my job to talk to
the press about different sorts of things and one of the types
of things we do when we talk to them is, you know, here's how
the administration generally is thinking about Iraq. We'll
have a discussion like that, or about China. I'll have that
usually as an off-the-record discussion over lunch just to
orient them to how we think about a problem. And it was that
type of atmosphere that I thought was the right atmosphere for
this.

Q. But you didn't have lunch. Correct?

A. We couldn't. That's why we had coffee.

Q. And that was 8 o'clock in the morning?

A. I've forgotten the time. I thought it was a little
later but it could be 8:00.

Q. Okay. Was there any — was the fact that you were
meeting with her and sharing information with her exclusively
one of the factors that wanted you to meet with her outside of
the building?

A. It could have been. It was also consistent with
that.

Q. And the fact that you were sharing a document with
her that you were not sharing with others, did you — did that
factor into your meeting with her at the hotel and not in your
building?

A. I could do that in the office also, but it was also
useful to do it — it had the right atmosphere to do it at the
St. Regis or someplace other than the office. So it would be
a more relaxed sort of setting was the primary reason. But
since I was going to be sharing this declassified document
with her, it was also useful to do it outside the building,
although I could have done it inside.

Q. And is it your understanding the document had been
declassified or is it your understanding that it was a
classified document but that you were authorized to share it
with Ms. Miller?

A. No, declassified.

Q. You understood it to be declassified because the
Vice President had told you that the President had authorized
you to talk about it?

A. Yes, sir. Because the President — there's no magic
process that I — according to counsel that has to be gone
through. If the President says to talk about this document,
it is then a declassified document. And that was the
understanding that I had with the Vice President when he went
to talk to the President about it.

Q. And in your career had you ever been authorized
before to talk about a document that you knew to be classified
with the press and therefore understood that the direction to
talk about the document with the press had in effect
declassified it?

A. I think this may be the first time I've ever talked
about a classified document in this fashion, getting it
declassified first.

Q. And has that happened since, since your conversation
with Judith Miller?

A. No, sir.

Q. So this would be the only time in your career that
you were told that you were authorized to discuss a document
that you had known to be classified but for the fact that you
were told that the President authorized you to discuss it?

A. Yes, sir. I think so.

Q. And how clear were you when you spoke to Mr.
Addington about whether this was appropriate to do? Did you
tell him that you wished to discuss a classified document with
a reporter but you had been authorized by the President
through the Vice President to do so?

A. I was very — I didn't use those words, but I was
very clear. Can the, can the Vice President — can the
President declassify a document just by telling us to talk —
and that's how he put it. If the President tells you to talk
about a document, it's declassified.

Q. And through your conversation with Addington you
made it clear that you were going to be talking about a
document with someone outside the government without a
security clearance. Correct?

A. It was not a — it was not specific to a document
but it was clearly asking him, could that be done? And he
explained how it could be done. Yes, sir.

Q. And so he understood, you made it clear to Mr.
Addington, that you were going to be talking about classified
material with the press or to the public, but you had been
authorized to do so?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did he express any reservations, Mr. Addington,
with your talking to the press or the public about a
classified document?

A. I may have answered the previous question a little
too fast. You said, you had been authorized to do so. I
don't think I said to him — it was in the context of, if I
have been authorized to do so. I don't think I said to him
explicitly the President had authorized, that sort of thing.

Q. But you made it clear that what you were asking him
was whether or not a fact otherwise classified could be
discussed with the press or the public if the President
authorized you to do so?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you did not have a conversation with Mr.
Addington where you asked him, could the President overrule
the Director of Central Intelligence, if the Director of
Central Intelligence refused to declassify a document?

A. My discussion with David Addington was that — David
Addington telling me that the President had it in his
authority to declassify a document.

Q. And my question is, did you make it clear to him
that your question wasn't whether the President had the
abstract authority to declassify a document, but whether the
President could in effect declassify a document by authorizing
an official to discuss classified material, otherwise
classified material, with the press or the public?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he indicate any reservations about that?

A. No, sir.

Q. And do you know when the Vice President talked to
the President to get the permission for you to discuss this
with the press and in effect in your mind declassify the
document?

A. No, sir.

Q. And were you present for that conversation?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did the Vice President tell you about that
conversation?

A. He told me he had talked to the President and we
should go ahead and, you know, talk to the press about the
NIE.

Q. And do you know if the Vice President told the
President what the legal issue was in terms of sharing
classified information?

A. I don't know what happened in that conversation.
But the Vice President knew that we needed to have the
President's authority to talk about the document, or that
section of the document.

Q. And was anyone else present with you when you
discussed with the Vice President the issue of whether or not
you could be authorized to discuss classified material with
the press or the public?

A. No, sir, but I referred him to the conversation with
David Addington.

Q. So as far as you know, did the Vice President and
David Addington discuss that issue?

A. I don't know.

Q. And do you know if the Vice President and the
President talked about it in person or by telephone?

A. I don't know.

Q. And do you know how long before your July 8th
meeting with Judith Miller that conversation took place?

A. I don't. My sense was that it was within a few
days, but I don't really know.

Q. Could it have been the day before, July 7th, as far
as you know?

A. Could have been, or it could have been some time at
the end of the previous weekend. I mean, excuse me, I mis-
spoke. End of the previous week, before the weekend. It
could have been any day in that period.

Q. And who else in the administration was told, as far
as you know, that you were authorized to discuss the relevant
portions of the NIE with Judith Miller?

A. Nobody as far as I know.

Q. So as far you know, the only three people who knew
about this would be the President, the Vice President and
yourself?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And going up to July 18th, is it fair to say that
there were a number of different conversations within the
administration about declassifying the NIE?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during those conversations did you ever tell any
of the other people that in fact the President had already
declassified the NIE in your mind?

A. No, sir.

Q. And in your presence did the Vice President ever
tell these other people that you understood that the NIE had
already been declassified?

A. No, sir.

Q. And as far as you know, was the CIA or Director
Tenet ever notified that the NIE had been declassified in your
mind as of July 8th with regard to those portions concerning
uranium?

A. No, sir.

Q. And were there conversations in which Mr. Hadley
discussed declassification of the NIE?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there conversations where Dr. Rice discussed
declassification of the NIE?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there conversations in which Andrew Card, the
Chief of Staff, discussed declassification of the NIE?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during all those conversations it remained
unknown to them that in fact you understood that the NIE had
already been declassified?

A. By the President. Yes, sir.

Q. And is it fair to say that on July 10th the Vice
President, according to your notes, indicated that he would
recommend to the President declassification of the relevant
parts of the NIE?

A. My recollection is that's what he was telling Steve
Hadley should pass on to Director Tenet, that they wanted to
get those portions declassified and then they were
declassified.

Q. And so in your mind, the Vice President was telling
Steve Hadley to tell George Tenet that we, the Office of Vice
President, would recommend declassification even though at the
time, according to your account, both he and you knew that the
NIE had already been declassified?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is it fair to say that in the following
conversations during that week there are a number of
conversations where people discussed declassification where
you and the Vice President knew that in your mind the
President had already authorized you to discuss this with the
press? Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that unusual for you to have the National
Security Advisor, Director of Central Intelligence and the
White House Chief of Staff, among others, in the dark as to
something that you had done regarding declassification?

A. It is not unusual for the Vice President to tell me
something which I am not allowed to share with others. And
it's so — it doesn't happen very often — well, it happens
often that the Vice President will tell me something that I
cannot share with other people and I will sit in the room with
them while they talk about something. I think that many times
when they know something and I know something, but neither of
us know that the other person knows it or is supposed to know
and we don't talk about it, that happens quite frequently
actually.

Q. And with regard to declassification issues, are
there any other times that you're aware of that you knew that
something had been declassified by the President and other
members of the national security community were in the dark?

A. Yes, sir. There are numbers of times when the
President intends to make a statement about something, for
example. He's going to announce an initiative or he's going
to reveal in a speech that some — you know, that we have
intelligence on a certain point, and the fact that he is going
to do so is often closely held among a certain number of
people. And you can be in other people — be in meetings with
other people who don't know that you're about to give a speech
on that topic or unveil that initiative who are still treating
it as a classified matter and still believe it to be a
classified matter. So that happens not, not infrequently.

Q. Was there any other occasion where you knew the
press — a member of the press to have a document that had
been given to the press by the administration where others in
the administration still thought the information contained
therein was, was classified?

A. There are numbers of occasions where I understand,
usually not with me, usually with Director — with National
Security Advisor Rice, will be assigned to go background the
press about some initiative or something which the President
is going to do where other people that I talk to do not know
that in fact she is backgrounding people about it. There are
many occasions where she has backgrounded reporters about some
event and I'm in the room and I don't know that it's been
done. This happens a fair amount.

Q. How long have you known Judith Miller?

A. Not very long. I've known of Judith Miller from her
writings, and particularly from a book that she wrote, for
some time. But I had actually only met her, I think, once
before July 8th.

Q. And what was the occasion before July 8th that you
had met Ms. Miller?

A. I had, I think, contacted Ms. Miller because I
wanted to meet her. I under — I believe her to be a serious
reporter who cares about the substance of, of the issues. She
had written a book called "Germs", if I recall, which is about
biological warfare with another reporter who is a friend of
mine. I think it's — well, Steve Engleberg, I think is the
co-author. And he had interviewed me for the book. I had
never spoken to her in connection with the book. But the book
is a serious attempt to go through at great length how the
administrations, administrations, not just this one, or
actually not this one, the Clinton administration, the Bush
administration, others had looked at the threat of biological
warfare and I considered her from this and from other things
the sort of reporter who actually cares about the substance of
it and wants to get it right so they're doing the best at —
the highest function of the press which is to alert the public
as to, you know, a serious issue as a compliment to when the
administrations talk about a serious issue. And she had
obviously spent a lot of time on this issue and cared about
it, so I wanted to meet her to get to know her and so I called
her and she was glad to come in, and we had a — my
recollection is we had a meeting in my office some weeks
before July 8th.

Q. And when you met her, and when you say some weeks
before, we are talking May, June, spring of 2003?

A. I don't recall. It would be on my schedule. And
that would be the first time I met her, as I recall.

Q. Okay. And that was the first time you recall
meeting her even on a social occasion?

A. I don't recall ever meeting her before that. It's
possible.

Q. And did anyone go with you to the meeting with
Judith Miller on July 8th?

A. On July 8? No. No, sir.

Q. Okay. And did you bring anything else besides the
redacted portion of the NIE with you?

A. I may have had some notes, something like that.

Q. Do you know if you brought any talking points?

A. I think I had talking points — I think I had other
notes that I'm not sure if I used or not, which were of the
same nature. Things — you know, statements from the NIE from
the first part, from the judgments part, but I'm not — I
think I had those with me, but I don't, I don't think I — I
don't know if I used them all.

Q. Did you bring the NIE itself?

A. No, sir, I don't think so.

Q. And did Judith Miller ever write a piece as a result
of your meeting with her?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. I don't know. It was a totally failed effort to get
the NIE out as far as I could tell.

Q. And we'll go forward — the last time you told us
about a conversation you had with Judith Miller, you believe
on a Saturday where you discussed Wilson's wife working at the
CIA. Do you recall that testimony?

A. It was on the weekend of the aircraft carrier trip,
July 12th, 13. Yes, sir.

Q. And how certain are you that you had a conversation
with Judith Miller about Wilson's wife working at the CIA on
the weekend as opposed to being part of the July 8th meeting?

A. I'm certain I talked to her about it from my home
because I remember where I was.

Q. And where were you?

A. In my little office, cluttered.

Q. Okay. And what phone did you use?

A. I think either the government — there are two
phones in that office and I don't know which one I used. One
is my personal home phone and the other is — I think I used
my personal home phone.

Q. And you also have a government phone there?

A. There's also a government phone there.

Q. Do you know what the phone number is to the
government phone?

A. I don't.

Q. Okay. Is that — that's not the same number as your
government office, I take it?

A. Correct, it is not.

Q. And the phone bills, I presume since it's a
government phone, go to the government, not to you?

A. I certainly hope so. I've never been quite clear,
but I'm hoping I'm not paying for that phone.

Q. Okay. So there are two phones. One is your
personal phone and if you, if you think about it when you make
calls, you make personal calls on your personal phone and
business calls on your government phone?

A. It's not quite that rigorous. I make many business
calls on my personal phone. In fact, this one was a business
call on my personal phone.

Q. Okay. So you believe you used your personal phone?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay. And on your personal phone, what's your long
distance service?

A. AT&T, I guess.

Q. Okay. Are they all — do you get two separate bills
at the end of every month, for local service and a separate
one for long-distance or are they one bill?

A. I, I think my wife pays the phone bills. I think
there are two bills, but I'm not sure.

Q. And do you use a phone card for long-distance? Is
it your practice to dial one of those numbers that —

A. No, I think on this — well, from my home I would
just use my own — I could have used the government card and
probably should have, but I think I just paid for it myself.

Q. Okay. And do you have a personal long-distance
service that you use, a personal phone card that you employ?

A. Yes —

Q. And what —

A. — it's one — you mean a phone card that goes to my
person — that goes to my home phone, just my home phone?
Yes.

Q. And what company is that with?

A. It would be — I guess it's the same. I assume it's
the same.

Q. Is it your practice when you make calls from your
home just to dial 1, the area code and the number?

A. Unfortunately sir, yes.

Q. Okay, so you don't do the 10 cents a minute service?

A. No, sir. And I, and I don't charge it to the
government usually, although I suppose I should.

Q. Okay. And your recollection is that when you spoke
to Ms. Miller on that weekend you were using your personal
phone at your home, but possibly your government phone at your
home?

A. Yes, sir. I think it was my personal phone.

Q. Okay. Any chance you used your cell phone, your
government cell phone?

A. My recollection of the call to Judith Miller is that
it, it was interrupted and I think I did all of them on my,
all of them on my home desk phone.

Q. Okay. And how many cell phones do you have?

A. Just the one.
MR. FITZGERALD. The government cell phone. Okay,
why don't we break at 10:45 and come back —
GRAND JUROR. At 1100 hours, please.
MR. FITZGERALD. 1100 hours, military time. That's
fine. Thank you.
WITNESS. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 10:45
A.m.)
(Whereupon, the witness was recalled at 11:17
A.m.)
GRAND JUROR. And we'll just remind you, you're
still under oath.
WITNESS. Thank you.
GRAND JUROR. Thank you.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. And clarifying two points on the conversation with
Judith Miller. Do you recall whether or not you discussed Mr.
Wilson's wife at all during your conversation on July 8th with
Ms. Miller?

A. I don't recall. I don't recall any discussion —

Q. And do you recall if you discussed Mr. Wilson at all
during your conversation with Judith Miller on July 8th?

A. I don't recall any discussion of it, but it's — in
connection with the statement by the NI — in the NIE that
Iraq had vigorous — the flat statement that Iraq had
vigorously begun, that statement is six months after his
report and it's possible that I said something about that.

Q. And is it fair to say that the, the part of the NIE
that made that statement, that talked about Iraq, quote,
vigorously, close quote, trying to procure uranium was the
heart of what you wanted to get out to Judith Miller that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's what the Vice President wanted out in the
public domain because it rebutted the claim that the efforts
to get uranium had been debunked. Fair to say?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's — but the fact that the "vigorously
trying to get uranium" was in a classified document is what
prompted the whole discussion you had with the Vice President
and with Mr. Addington to make sure that it was okay for you
to discuss that statement about vigorously trying to get
uranium for the report. Correct?

A. Yes, if I could just amend this yes and the previous
one. There were other parts of the NIE. That was the section
on uranium. There were other statements in the front of the
NIE that were also declassified by the President and then
later by Tenet which talk about more in general that they had
a nuclear program and that sort of thing. They were also —
it's not just that one sentence. It was also the, the more
generic statements from the key judgment section that were,
that were important. But yes, the — yes.

Q. Okay. It's fair to say that if you could get Judith
Miller to write one sentence about the NIE, you'd want her to
quote the part that said "vigorously trying to procure uranium
as a conclusion of the NIE"?

A. I don't know about that. I think there's some
statements up front that were even more useful, about that
Iraq was pursuing chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
You know, the uranium bit was just one small piece, one bit of
evidence of the bigger issue which was whether they were
pursuing a nuclear program. But it was certainly a useful
statement. I don't mean to —

Q. And certainly after July 6th, when the efforts to
try to acquire uranium were in dispute following Mr. Wilson's
piece, quoting to the vigorous efforts — quote, vigorously,
close quote, trying to procure uranium as a description in the
NIE was, was helpful. Correct?

A. I would, I would say no, sir. I would say it was
important since the IAEA had in March declared the — certain
documents forgeries and that was when the controversy began
about whether the President had properly said something about,
about, about uranium at all. And the July 7 statement that,
that, that it was a mistake to say it was really with regard
to a lot of discussion prior to that by — or prior and
subsequent to that by National Security Advisor Rice which was
about the fact that there were these forged documents that we
had mistakenly relied upon and that was only — but that was
only part of the case about uranium. So I would say that the
sentence about uranium was — and the statements in the front
about the nuclear program were important for the general
broader picture of whether the President was right to say
something about uranium.

Q. Okay. And it's fair to say with regard to the
statement that there were — that Iraq was quote, vigorously,
close quote, trying to obtain uranium, that was one of the
issues that you understood to be classified that you needed
the authority of the President to discuss it with the press.
Correct?

A. Yes, sir. It was — yes, sir. It was also in the
July 11 statement by George Tenet.

Q. But prior to July 11th, prior to the July 8th
meeting with Judith Miller, your concern was, I can't go to
Judith Miller on July 8 and discuss with her that the NIE says
that Iraq is, quote, vigorously, close quote, trying to
procure uranium because that's coming from a classified
document, and unless I know that the President had authorized
me to do that, you felt barred from discussing it?

A. Exactly right.

Q. Okay. And the conversation where the Vice President
obtained the permission from the President for you to discuss
it with the press you believe occurred before July 8th.
Whether it was July 7th, or at the end of the prior week,
that's when the Vice President had the authority, you
understood, from the President to authorize you to discuss the
reference in the NIE that Iraq was, quote, vigorously, close
quote, trying to procure uranium?

A. Yes, sir. I don't know when that discussion
occurred between the President and the Vice President. I do
know that there were these, you know — he told me to go, and
then he told me to hold, and then he told me to go. And those
discussions were after he had gone off to have these
discussions.

Q. And it was when you finally got the go-ahead, you
spoke to — on July 8th to Judith Miller and then you told her
about, quote, about the efforts described in the NIE as quote,
vigorously, close quote, trying to procure uranium by Iraq.
Is that fair to say? Let me rephrase —

A. It was a long question. Sorry.

Q. After you got the final go-ahead, you then told
Judith Miller that the NIE said that Iraq was, quote,
vigorously, close quote, trying to procure uranium?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you also, I take it, included that reference to
the NIE's language about, quote, vigorously, close quote,
trying to procure uranium in the redacted document you
provided Judith Miller?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And to your understanding is that the first time you
disclosed to a member of the press that the NIE contained a
reference that Iraq was, quote, vigorously, close quote,
trying to procure uranium?

A. Yes, sir. I think so.

Q. Let me, let me show you what's been — what we'll
mark as 2881, or refer to as 2881 to 2884, for the record.
And these are notes, I believe they look like Cathie Martin's
handwriting. Does that look to be Cathie Martin's handwriting
to you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that the July, the July 2nd meeting where
David Sanger interview with Scooter for WMD?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does it also indicate that a Risen, R-i-s-e-n, and a
Shanger were present?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there three reporters present or is "Shanger" a
mis-spelling of Sanger?

A. It's weird. I don't know, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. No, I don't believe there were two present.

Q. Okay. And does it indicate in the underlined
section, "OTR but Sanger will clear background quotes"? At
the top.

A. Yes, sir. Yes, uh-hum.

Q. Is that your understanding means off-the-record, but
Sanger will clear background quotes?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does then it talk about the Powell presentation
and indicate "D.S." making some statements, meaning David
Sanger, and then S.L. responding, "Scooter" Libby?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And does it indicate from the first page, "meant to
be Chinese menu"? The first statement you made. Is that a
reference to the fact that you gave some material to Secretary
of State Powell that he could use in making his presentation
but it was a Chinese menu from which he could draw what he
wanted and ignore what he wanted?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that a conversation you had with David Sanger
that day?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know if you ever discussed with either
the Vice President or whether he discussed with anyone else
whether you could share with Judith Miller the fact that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. I don't recall any discussion with the Vice
President about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, about
sharing that with the press. Now, after July 14, after the
Novak article came out, in that time frame I may have asked
him, you know, "Do you want me to refer to that?" And it's
possible I may have asked him that after even Russert —
although I don't know — don't recall anything about it.

Q. And what is it that makes you think you might have
asked the Vice President about referring other reporters to
what you had learned either in writing from the Novak column
or on the telephone from Mr. Russert?

A. I'm sorry —

Q. You say that it's possible that you talked to the
Vice President after you spoke to Mr. Russert to ask him
whether you could share with other reporters what you had
learned about Wilson's wife from Russert. And do you have a
recollection of, of having that conversation?

A. No, sir. No recollection.

Q. And you say it's possible that you may have talked
to the Vice President after the Novak column appeared asking
him whether it was appropriate for you to share with other
reporters, call their attention to Novak's column. Do you
have a recollection of that conversation happening?

A. I have recollections of talking to the Vice
President at times about does he want me to share some point
of fact with reporters, or talk about some point of fact with
reporters. About, you know, many things over three years. I
don't recall specifically having a conversation with him about
sharing with — about Wilson's wife. But it's possible. I
just don't recall it.

Q. And is it fair to say you had, in a prior FBI
interview, you indicated it was possible that you may have
talked to the Vice President on Air Force Two coming back from
the ceremony involving the U.S.S. Reagan about whether you
should share the information with the press about Wilson's
wife?

A. It's possible that would have been one of the times
I could have talked to him about what I had learned from
Russert and what Karl Rove had told me about Novak, Mr. Novak.

Q. And as you sit here today, do you recall whether you
had such a conversation with the Vice President on Air Force
Two on July 12th?

A. No, sir. My, my best recollection of that
conversation was what I had on my note card which we have
produced which doesn't reflect anything about that.

Q. And other than the fact — strike that.
Do you know if you spoke to the Wall Street Journal
prior to July 18th about the NIE contents before the July 18th
date came around and made the NIE publicly available?

A. I did not.

Q. Do you know who did?

A. Secretary Wolfowitz did.

Q. Okay. And how do you know that?

A. Because I discussed with the Vice President whether
we should — the Tenet statement, which came out on July
11th — can I start this paragraph again?

Q. Sure.

A. The Tenet statement came out on July 11 and referred
to some of the documents but not to one of the — some of the
more important documents, including the document that came out
on January — that was sent to the White House on January
24th, 2003. And that document had the same content as the NIE
word-for-word in the relevant portions. And it came very
close to the State of the Union, very close to Secretary
Powell's presentation, and it also said that Iraq had
vigorously begun to pursue the procurement of uranium. That
document had not been included in Secretary — excuse me,
Director Tenet's July 11 statement. And so during the week,
you know, after July 14, in that week, the Vice President
thought we should still try and get the fact of that document
out. And so he asked me to talk to the Wall Street Journal.
We discussed the possibility of talking to the Wall Street
Journal, to get that out. I don't have as good a relationship
with the Wall Street Journal as Secretary Wolfowitz did, and
so we talked to Secretary Wolfowitz about — I talked to
Secretary Wolfowitz about trying to get that point across, and
he undertook to do so.

Q. And do you know when that week, when following July
11th that you spoke to Secretary Wolfowitz, and if you know,
when Secretary Wolfowitz spoke to the Wall Street Journal?

A. I don't. It was some time Monday, Tuesday, and I
think it came out in the Thursday Wall Street Journal with the
same language which Secretary — Director Tenet had had in
Director Tenet's July 11th statement. And so he talked to
them some time before the 17th.

Q. And I'll show you next 3644 to 3645. Do you know if
Secretary Wolfowitz sent anything, in terms of actual written
material, to the Wall Street Journal?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know if you sent anything to Secretary
Wolfowitz that he could either use to talk with the Wall
Street Journal or could share with them?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Do you know if you would have sent Secretary
Wolfowitz the redacted version of the NIE that you would have
shared with Judith Miller?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Did you ever hear if Secretary Wolfowitz sending a
fax to the editor at the Wall Street Journal of talking points
regarding Mr. Wilson?

A. No, I didn't know — I did not know about that.

Q. And let me show you first 3644 and 3645. And that's
a fax — an e-mail from Hannah Seemers. And just for the
Grand Jury's benefit, who's Hannah Seemers (ph.)?

A. I believe she's someone who works for Cathie Martin
in the Press Shop for the Office of Vice President.

Q. Does this show, in the text of the July 17th Wall
Street Journal, does it quote from different portions of the,
quote, now famous NIE, close quote, in that editorial? For
example, the second paragraph, does it says, the section on
Iraq's hunt for uranium, for example, asserts bluntly that,
quote, Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium
ore and yellowcake, close quote, and that quote, "acquiring
either would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce
nuclear weapons," close quote?

A. Yes, sir. The — it does. I mean, this is —
"vigorously trying to procure" is the same thing that's in
Director Tenet's July 11th statement.

Q. But it says here that "We're reliably told that the
now famous NIE, which is meant to be the best summary judgment
of the intelligence community, isn't nearly as full of doubt
about that yellowcake story as the critics assert or as even
CIA Director George Tenet has suggested." Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir, it says that.

Q. And so, it indicates then it quotes the NIE, so it's
not quoting Director Tenet's statements, it's quoting the text
of the NIE. Correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And is it your —

A. Yes.

Q. — and then it goes on to say, regarding the
supposedly discredited Niger story, the NIE says that, quote,
and it gives you a paragraph quoted from the NIE, and
continues throughout the editorial to quote sections of the
NIE. Is that fair to say?

A. Yes, sir. It looks like the NIE — it quotes — it
purports to be a quote from the NIE and it looks like the NIE
to me.

Q. Okay. And does the article — editorial also state
that this information, by the way, does not come from the
White House which, which has handled this story in a ham-
handed fashion. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is it fair to say that you understand that the
information did not come from the White House, it came from
Secretary Wolfowitz?

A. It's my understanding that Secretary Wolfowitz was
going to talk to the Wall Street Journal.

Q. At the direction of the White House?

A. No, at — he — I talked to him about it and he said
he was going to do it, yes, sir.

Q. And so as a result of that conversation you
understand that the contents of the NIE were shared with the
Wall Street Journal the day before they became publicly
available, on July 18th. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And do you know if Secretary Wolfowitz had
been told that the President had, in your view, declassified
the NIE prior to it being officially declassified on July
18th?

A. I don't know, I may have told him, but I don't know.
I don't recall.

Q. Do you know if he knew that fact before you told him
that he should reach out to the Wall Street Journal?

A. I don't know that.

Q. And do you know if you shared with him any text that
you might wish to share with the Wall Street Journal?

A. No, I don't think I shared text with him, but I know
that it was covered in the — well, all I know is the — what
he had available was he had the NIE and the Wall Street
Journal — I'm sorry, the July 11 piece from Tenet, talked
about the sentence that as you say was the most important to
us which was the vigorously trying to procure —

Q. Now, did there come a time when there was a lunch
hosted by the Vice President with conservative columnists?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was that on July 17th? On July 18th?

A. One of those two days. Yes, sir.

Q. And was that in part an effort by the Vice President
to sort of get the story out more, more fully in light of his
frustration that Director Tenet's statement hadn't been as
complete as he would like?

A. I think it was an attempt to get the story out more
fully about many issues, including the full statement on what
we understood about the NIE.

Q. And do you recall, did you attend the lunch that he
had with those columnists?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And I'll show you 2761 and 2767. Did Cathie
Martin attend that lunch?

A. I think she did, sir.

Q. Okay. Did anyone else from your office, besides the
Vice President himself, yourself and Cathie Martin?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Mary Matalin attended that
lunch?

A. She might have. She was not of our office at that
point. You know, she had left our office, I think, at that
point.

Q. Do you remember her being there?

A. She may have been. She's been at some of these.
Yes, sir.

Q. And during that luncheon with these columnists, do
you recall if there was discussion about Mr. Wilson?

A. I think there probably was, sir.

Q. And do you recall what was said about Mr. Wilson at
this luncheon?

A. I don't recall in — I don't recall. But I, I
believe at this luncheon — again, I believe at this luncheon
we were able to pass out the declassified NIE, the sections of
the NIE that had been declassified at this point by the
Director of Central Intelligence in hard copy, and that
includes the language about vigorously trying to pursue, and I
think they probably talked about that at that point.

Q. And what was your view of Ambassador Wilson at this
point, on July 18th?

A. My view was that his — the story that he was
presenting should by this point be pretty soundly refuted to
anyone who was willing to pay attention to the facts. That
is, it was now clear that as opposed to his sort of four part
argument that the Vice President did not ask for the mission
for him to go off, or anyone to go off to Niger; that report
did not reach — that the report about his trip did not reach
the Vice President; that the NIE — and the intelligence
community in fact did not regard his trip as definitive and in
fact regarded it as having some evidence that was supportive
of the claim that Iraq tried to procure uranium and that
therefore nobody was twisting intelligence when the President,
you know, intended intelligence to be twisted when the
President went out and made the statement.

Q. Did you think that Ambassador Wilson was making an
honest portrayal of the facts in his public statement?

A. I thought that by that point — in his July 6th
column he had — July 6th column, he had said that, you know,
if my view of this is wrong, if somebody thought my, my
presentation was not persuasive on this, then I understand,
although I'd like to know why they didn't think what I found
was persuasive. And I thought at this point there was enough
to indicate to him that the intelligence community had not
found it to be persuasive and I sort of hoped that at that
point he would rescind his complaints and not be making more
complaints.

Q. Did you think he was qualified to have gone on the
mission that he went on back in 2002?

A. Yes, sir, given — I mean, his mission as I
understood, he went and he talked to a former Nigerian Prime
Minister and a former Nigerian Economic Minister, maybe some
others. But that's what the cable reports on. And he was —
as an ambassador he was perfectly capable to conduct those
missions.

Q. And did you think that — putting aside what was
characterized about the trip, that it was appropriate for him
to go on that mission back in 2002?

A. It's not really for me to say what's appropriate for
him to — you know, what type of mission is appropriate and
who is the appropriate person to do it. That's a Central
Intelligence Agency matter. I thought that he was qualified
to go talk to foreign government ministers. That's something
he had done as an ambassador presumably many times.

Q. Hadn't your reaction been, as you told us earlier
this morning with Undersecretary Grossman, even in jest that,
you know, isn't it a strange world when the CIA is sending
people out to do a job that the State Department could do?

A. Yes, sir. That was — back in June that was my
reaction. Now it may be that — again, that was in jest. But
it may be that he knew these people personally somehow in a
way that the current ambassador didn't know them. There's
some suggestion to that, I think, in his column. Again,
whether that's the right way to go about finding out the truth
here is an issue for the, for the CIA. As the CIA itself has
said, and as Director Tenet said, he went and he talked to
officials there and asked them in the name of the U.S.
government, saying he was going to get back to the U.S.
government, did you trade — did you do a deal with Iraq for
uranium? The people who he was talking to knew that that
would be against U.N. sanctions and against the interest of
the United States and would be providing the makings for
nuclear weapons to one of our — an enemy that was — a
country that was a great enemy of ours. So it would be
surprising if they admitted to that. But he was perfectly
capable to go have those conversations in my view.

Q. In your opinion did you think at that time in, in
July, that he had gone as a result of nepotism?

A. I didn't know why he had gone, sir.

Q. But do you have an opinion one way or the other as
to whether or not Ambassador Wilson had been selected because
of nepotism?

A. I didn't know whether he had been selected because
of nepotism. Again, I, I thought he was fully qualified to do
the mission that he went — that I understood he had
performed. There was a suggestion in the Novak column that
his wife had been the one who suggested him to go, but I
thought he was qualified to do what he went to do.

Q. My only question to you is, in your state of mind
were you thinking that he went on this mission because of
nepotism?

A. Nepotism has two meanings to me. One is of a person
who is unqualified to do something but he gets the job because
he's somebody's nephew. I didn't think he was unqualified to
do the job that he was given. I suspected, having seen the
Novak column, that if he had not been her husband they may not
have picked him for this mission or they might not have done
this mission, but I thought he was qualified to do the
mission.

Q. And next question, did you think prior to the Novak
column, when you had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA and, and by your own recollection you heard that from Vice
President Cheney, did you think then that he might have been
selected for the job because of his marital relationship?

A. No, sir. That — I don't think that is — that was
not one of the things I was thinking about at that point.

Q. Did you at any time think it was abnormal for the
CIA to send Former Ambassador Wilson to Niger to investigate
this claim?

A. Yes, I thought it was abnormal only because we have
an ambassador there and he's coming in — abnormal may be too
strong a word. I didn't understand why it would be useful,
given that we had an ambassador there who could go talk to
people. Again, as you look at his column I think he says
there were some people that he had a personal relationship
with and that would make some difference, although, you know,
walking in the front door and saying, "I'm from the United
States government, I want to know if you traded nuclear — the
materials for nuclear weapons with our great enemy, Iraq," did
not seem to me a definitive way of going about and trying to
test the proposition which is in fact how — and Director
Tenet cast the same doubt upon it in his statement of July
11th.

Q. Did it — did you think it undercut the credibility
of the arguments being made as a result of the Wilson column
that Wilson was actually someone who wasn't on the United
States' payroll?

A. I didn't know whether he was on the, on the United
States' payroll until his column where he says he got his
expenses. And I was not familiar enough with the practices of
the Agency to know whether that's a common way or not a common
way of doing it. I don't, I don't think that payroll makes
the difference.

Q. You didn't think the issue of whether he was on or
off the payroll was significant?

A. I thought it was a factor in trying to figure out
exactly how the Agency viewed this mission, but — so it may
have had some importance. I didn't think it was definitive of
any way.

Q. And why would it be important with how the Agency
viewed the mission if he was on the payroll or not?

A. I don't know how they normally do their — how the
Agency normally pulls people for missions like this. I would
have thought in the normal course, if somebody goes on a
mission like this, they might be paid for their time, but I
didn't know.

Q. Did you think that might be a factor in, in how
people should view how much weight the Agency put on his
services, whether or not he was paid?

A. It's possible if they paid him it would indicate
even more seriousness about it, but it didn't seem to me to —
doesn't seem to me as I sit here today definitive.

Q. And do you know if Vice President Cheney in July of
2003 thought that Ambassador Wilson was qualified to do the
job that he was sent to do?

A. I, I don't know whether he thought he was — I think
Vice President — I don't, I don't know the answer to your
question. I think the Vice President thought he was qualified
to do what was reported in the cable. If, if he was sent to
somehow determine in a definitive way whether Niger had done
this, I don't know that the Vice President thought he was
qualified to do that. I think for what he did, I would think
the Vice President thought he was qualified.

Q. And did the Vice President ever indicate his belief
that Ambassador Wilson was selected to go on this mission
because of his marital relationship with someone who worked at
the CIA?

A. He — I think he, at times, had suspicions about,
you know, is that why he was selected for this mission?

Q. And what makes you say that?

A. You know, I think he made comments about it in
connection with, well, his — you know, his wife works there.
It wasn't a full sentence, I don't think, but that's the sort
of notion I took from it.

Q. An implication that if his wife hadn't worked there,
he wouldn't have been the one sent to do the job?

A. Something like that. Yes, sir.

Q. And when did the Vice President say that?

A. Oh, these were in discussions, July, maybe — late
July, maybe September, things like that.

Q. And what was the — why was the Vice President
discussing that in late July, early September?

A. People would come through and talk about different
issues and, you know, an issue might come up about the Wilson
controversy which was in the news.

Q. And why did the President — Vice President not
discuss this back in June, on or about June 9th, 10th, 11th,
when you were preparing for the Pincus column and he noted
that his wife works at the CIA? Did you take from that an
observation that, oh, his wife works out there, he wouldn't
have the job otherwise?

A. No, sir. The only, the only time I best recall
discussing it just then was that discussion. That's all I
recall.

Q. And when you —

A. I'm sorry, when I say that discussion, I, I, I want
to be clear, the discussion that I took the note about.

Q. And from July 6th, when the Novak — July 6, when
the Wilson piece appears, until July 12, when you were talking
to reporters after Air Force Two, do you recall any
conversation during that week where Vice President Cheney
observed or had it brought to his attention that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA?

A. I certainly don't recall any discussion about that
prior to the Russert/Novak conversations when I learned about
the wife, what I thought was the first time. And I don't
recall, as I told you before, whether we discussed that on the
plane that day.

Q. And do you —

A. But I don't, I don't recall any such discussion.

Q. — and do you recall whether or not between July
12th and July 18th, when you had this lunch with the
conservative columnists, he had any discussion with you about
his — any belief he might have that Wilson was picked because
of his wife working at the CIA?

A. I don't recall a discussion about that.

Q. Do you recall if it came up at the lunch on July
18th with the conservative columnists present?

A. I don't recall if it came up at that lunch.

Q. Do you recall if the Vice President had questions
about the credibility of Wilson in light of the fact that he
was not on the payroll of the U.S. government when he took the
trip?

A. It's possible. You know, we should have notes from
that lunch, but I don't recall it sitting here about that
lunch.

Q. And do you recall if he ever expressed to you at any
time an opinion that Wilson's credibility is less because he
was not a person on the government payroll at the time of the
trip?

A. He might have said that. I, I don't recall it
specifically, but it's consistent with the general sense — an
uneasy — had a general uneasy head about it.

Q. And did the Vice President at any time express to
you that he thought this trip was handled in an unusual or
other than normal fashion by the CIA?

A. Yes.

Q. When did he express that?

A. Back in — I think there were times when he was
asking — I think back in June when he was asking about how
did we end up — how did this trip come about, this trip being
in the May Kristof column an ambassador was sent, he went on
this mission, and then he was talking about this mission which
we had only in a classified cable. He was sort of, you know,
asking about, oh, how did this mission come about that this
fellow went out and talked about it? And so there was some
unease at that point. And then I, as I say, I think I recall
after the, after the Wilson column came out he may have also
wondered about it.

Q. In what time frame? How, how long after the Wilson
column came out?

A. I don't recall, sir. I mean, I think — it was not
just one discussion, there was some other discussions and I
just don't recall specifically on the point of irregularity of
CIA hiring practices, if you will, what — when that came up.

Q. And why don't I show you the copy of the July 6th
column with some handwriting on it. If we could lay our hands
on that. And I believe we showed this document to you the
last time, or at least discussed it, and you indicated that
you had not seen this copy of the article with the handwriting
until the FBI showed it to you?

A. That's my recollection, sir.

Q. And showing you what has been already marked as
Grand Jury Exhibit 8, is that the copy of the Wilson column
with the handwriting that you recall first being shown by the
FBI?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay. And have you ever seen the Vice President
with a paper copy of the Wilson column? And by paper copy I
mean one not printed off the internet, not printed off a
computer, but the actual physical newspaper column?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you often see him with the actual newspaper
column — actual physical columns from newspapers?

A. Yes, he often will cut out from a newspaper an
article using a little pen knife that he has and put it on the
edge of his desk or put it in his desk and then pull it out
and look at it, think about it. That will often happen.

Q. Okay. And do you recall if he did that on this
occasion on July 6th?

A. Evidently he did, but I don't recall.

Q. Okay. And fair to say —

A. Once again, this, this column came out, I believe he
got this column when he was in Wyoming, not in Washington,
over the July 4 recess. And so it's — I don't think it would
have been there the day I walked in the office, for example.

Q. Okay. How long does the Vice President keep the
columns that he cuts out with a pen knife and puts on the
corner of his desk?

A. Sometimes a long time.

Q. And if you walked in the Vice President's office,
would you see a stack of old newspaper articles on the corner
of his desk?

A. He doesn't necessarily always keep it on the corner
of his desk. He keeps it in, in — underneath papers or in a
briefcase or something. I've seen him produce them from
different places. And since the FBI showed me this, I have on
occasion, noticed him still — you know, having a document on
his desk which is a cut out newspaper article.

Q. Just to paint the picture for people who haven't
been to the office of the Vice President, if any of us would
walk into his office would we, would we see a stack of
newspaper clippings or are we talking about one or two columns
that might be on the desk if someone were to look?

A. Oh, one or two. I mean, you'd see stacks of paper
and you wouldn't know what was in the stack of paper. I —
I'd never seen bunches of them, but I have seen two or three.

Q. And the handwriting at the top, is it fair to say
that that appears to be the Vice President's handwriting?

A. Yes, sir. As I told you last time —

Q. Right.

A. — I think that's right.

Q. And does one of the questions indicate at the top
here say, "Have they done this sort of thing before?"

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall the Vice President ever asking you
whether or not the CIA had ever done this sort of thing
before?

A. I think he did at one point.

Q. And do you know when that would have been?

A. No, sir.

Q. And it says here, underneath that, says, "send an
ambassador to answer a question"? Did, did he ever express to
you his disbelief that they would send an ambassador to answer
a question?

A. I don't recall him asking that specific question.

Q. Knowing the Vice President the way you do with daily
contact, would the question, "send an ambassador to answer a
question," indicate some sort of belief on his part that this
seems sort of silly to send an ambassador overseas to answer a
question?

A. It certainly seems like he thought it was an issue,
yes.

Q. And the next question written is, "do we ordinarily
send people out pro bono to work for us?" Do you recall the
Vice President asking you a question to the effect of, do we,
the United States government, send people unpaid to go work
for us?

A. Yes, sir. I think he asked something like that.

Q. And do you recall when he asked about that?

A. I, I don't.

Q. And lastly, it says, "or did his wife send him on a
junket?" Do you recall the Vice President indicating or
asking you or anyone in your presence whether or not
Ambassador Wilson's wife had arranged to have him sent on a
junket?

A. I think I recall him — I don't recall him asking me
that particular question, but I think I recall him musing
about that.

Q. Okay. And do you recall when it was that he mused
about that?

A. I, I think, I think it was after the Wilson column.

Q. Okay, and obviously —

A. I'm sorry, I don't mean the Wilson column, I'm
sorry, I mis-spoke. I think, I think it was after the Novak
column.

Q. Okay. And you mentioned last time that you thought
that the questions written, handwritten here, may have been
discussed at a later date, like August or September by the
Vice President?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And —

A. I don't know, later. I don't know when, but yes.

Q. Okay. And can you tell us why it would be that the
Vice President read the Novak column and had questions some of
which apparently seem to be answered by the Novak column, he
would go back and pull out an original July 6th op-ed piece
and write on that?

A. I — I'm not sure I —

Q. Well, the Novak column —

A. — followed your — he, he often kept these columns
for awhile and keeps columns and will think on them. And I
think what may have happened here is he may have — I don't
know when he wrote, he wrote the points down. But he might
have pulled out the column to think about the problem and
written on it, but I don't, I don't know. You'll have to ask
him.

Q. All right. As you sit here today are you telling us
that his concerns about Ambassador Wilson, his concerns that
he's working pro bono, his concerns that he's an ambassador
being sent to answer a single question, his concerns that his
wife may have sent him on a junket, would not have occurred
between July 6th and July 12th when you were focusing on
responding to the Wilson column but instead would have
occurred much later?

A. Only the part about the wife, sir, I think might not
have occurred in that week. The rest of it, I think, could
have occurred in that week because, you know, it's all there.
You say it's all in the column. The part about the wife I
don't recall discussing with him. It might have occurred to
him but I don't recall discussing it with him prior to
learning, again, about the wife.

Q. And when you say learning again, you mean your
conversation with Mr. Russert —

A. Yes.

Q. — where he told you about the wife? And your
recollection is that you did not remember you knew about the
wife, even though your notes show that you discussed that with
Vice President Cheney in June?

A. Yes, sir, that's right. I had forgotten it by the
time — my recollection is that I had forgotten it by the time
I heard it again from Tim Russert.

Q. Now, you mentioned last time that when you had
called Tim Russert one of the things you had called him about
was to complain about Andrea Mitchell, but then you explained
that that really wasn't the reason you had called, you called
to complain about Chris Matthews. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was your complaint about Andrea Mitchell when
you spoke to him?

A. She had said something earlier in the week. My
recollection is there had been twice in recent times prior to
that she had said something in her reports which I thought was
inaccurate or unfair. I — and I think this one — one of
them had to do with Andrea Mitchell had said that the White
House was angry at the CIA because the CIA did not include in
the NIE Ambassador Wilson's concerns. And that actually was,
was quite backwards. It wasn't, it wasn't true. And so I was
concerned about that. But it wasn't the purpose of my phone
call to Tim Russert that day. My purpose was to discuss the
Chris Matthews issue.

Q. Let me show you the documents marked 1528 and
looking ahead, the next document will be 1801. And my first
question is, do you recognize that document?

A. It's a document I've seen before.

Q. Do you know who prepared it?

A. I'm not sure who did the main work. It looks like
the type of document, the style of documents, that, that we do
and that I might have worked on, but I don't recall whether —
who did the first — you know, the basic drafting of it.

Q. Okay. And do you recall when you saw this document?

A. I, I don't. There is a note at the bottom about
when the staff secretary received it, but I don't know when I
saw it.

Q. Okay. And that note indicates in handwriting, July
18th, '03, beneath the stamp, "OVP staff secretary received"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is it your system that as things go through your
offices they get routed to the staff secretary to file so that
if it says July 18th, '03 is when the staff secretary received
it that it's in circulation or the people working on this
document are discussing it July 18th or before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So it could be July 18th, but it could be several
days before if they don't send it to the secretary before
that. Is that fair to say?

A. Could be, sir.

Q. Now, above, in the summary paragraph — and there's
also a stamp at the top which says "the Vice President has
seen"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that, is that where it appears to be an
indication that the Vice President had seen the document?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And then the third paragraph, does that
state — the second paragraph, does that end in the sentence,
"In addition, the report of Ambassador Joe Wilson has been
distorted by the press and Mr. Wilson"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that an indication that whoever wrote this
document believed that Ambassador Wilson himself was
distorting his report?

A. It's an indication that the, that the person who
wrote the document thinks that that is a way the issue could
be presented, sir. I don't know what the person who wrote it
thinks, but they, they indicated this is a way that the issue
could be presented.

Q. Well, doesn't it say, the report of Ambassador
Wilson has been distorted by the press and Mr. Wilson —

A. It does, sir.

Q. — period?

A. Yes, sir. It says that.

Q. So, they're not talking about presenting it.
They're saying Mr. Wilson has distorted this. Correct?

A. I don't know what the person writing it thought. It
indicates that how — that is how, they thought it could be
presented in a summary analyzing the statement. So they may
have thought it. They may have thought it was a fair way to
put it. I can't be — I don't know the mind of the person who
drove — who wrote it.

Q. Forgetting the mind of who wrote it —

A. It says it.

Q. — the language written on it says that Joe Wilson
has distorted this?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And do you know if anyone objected when they
read it, said, wait a minute, this is not about Joe Wilson.
He's not the story, things are wrong, but we think he's a
qualified, capable guy. We object to the comment that he's
distorting this. Was there any conversation to that effect?

A. No.

Q. Looking at 1801. And again, you don't know who
drafted that document?

A. I don't. I think I may have edited on this
document, but I'm not sure.

Q. And what makes you think you may have edited it?

A. It just looks like my type of — the formatting
looks like something — and it could be that people are used
to me at this point.

Q. Okay. And if you did edit it, you didn't change
or — the edited form left in the, the belief that Joe Wilson
was distorting things. Correct?

A. Yes, sir. The statement remains.

Q. And showing you 1801. Can you look at that document
and tell us if — and then we'll finish. Sorry. Tell us if
you recognize it and what it is?

A. I recognize the document.

Q. Okay. What is it?

A. It, it purports to be, I guess, a — well, it is a
draft of a statement that I might issue or talking points that
I might use in talking about the uranium — the sixteen words
and Ambassador — the two controversies, the sixteen words and
Ambassador Wilson and his, his trip.

Q. And do you know who prepared this?

A. It's written in the first person. But I — my — I
have a recollection that I did not write this, that someone
else wrote it for me as a proposed talking point for me.

Q. And who were you speaking with that, that you would
use this as a talking point for?

A. It may have — I don't recall it being specifically
for anybody. It might have been generic, how I might, you
know — taking a look at how I might present the issue when I
talk to people.

Q. And do you know who drafted this?

A. I don't know. There are some people who it could
be, but I don't know.

Q. And did you ever use this talking point as far as
you know?

A. My recollection is I did not use this.

Q. And any reason why?

A. No, it just — I didn't get around to using it. I'd
have to read it more carefully to see. There's a typo (sic)
in it. It's National Security Advisor Hadley, not Tenet, sort
of in the third paragraph.
MR. FITZGERALD. Why don't we — we can take that
up after lunch. Promised people we'd break at 12:00. We'll
come back — want to make it 1:05 or 1:00? You tell me.
GRAND JUROR. 1:05 is good.
MR. FITZGERALD. 1:05 and then we'll finish this
afternoon.
WITNESS. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 12:02 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the witness was recalled at 1:10 p.m.)
GRAND JUROR. Just want to remind you that you're
still under oath.
WITNESS. Thank you.
GRAND JUROR. Thank you.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Good afternoon again, Mr. Libby.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Let me show you what's been marked 1798 to 1799. Is
that a document with some handwriting on it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And whose hand — it's titled "Talking Points". And
does it say "false allegation, Hardball, 7/14"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And we can mark that as an exhibit since we know
it's not classified and we'll give it an exhibit number in a
moment.
But while you're looking at it, the handwritten
portions, do you recognize whose handwriting that is?

A. It's my handwriting.

Q. Okay. Does that say "Neil Shapiro"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what's underneath it?

A. "Adam Levine knows."

Q. Okay. And the next entry, do you know what that
says?

A. I think it says, "Eric Sorenson".

Q. Okay. And what does it say beneath that, if you
know?

A. I think it says, "or fax a station — something
station."

Q. Okay. And is that a, a talking point for
complaining in effect about the coverage on Hardball by Chris
Matthews on July 14th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you mentioned at one point you talked to Chris
Matthews and that he had told you — not Chris Matthews, Tim
Russert, and he had told you that there was nothing that you
could do, that he could do, that he didn't control Chris
Matthews in effect, that you needed to talk to Mr. Shapiro or
Mr. Sorenson. Is that —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — correct?

A. Yes, sir. Well, I don't, I don't remember him
mentioning Sorenson, but he may have.

Q. Okay. And do you know when you — did you write
down the names that Mr. Russert gave you, name or names of
people you should talk to?

A. I don't remember if I wrote it down or not.

Q. And do you know if this document which we're going
to mark as a Grand Jury exhibit —
MS. KEDIAN. Sixty-nine.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. — 69, do you know where you got the names in the
upper right-hand corner to write down? Is that from a
conversation with Mr. Russert or a conversation with someone
else?

A. I don't think it was with Mr. Russert. I think it
may have been with Cathie Martin or it may have been my making
notes about stuff that I remembered from hearing before.

Q. Okay. So that document, despite being dated July
14th, and having the names of the alternate contacts, isn't a
document that you would have been writing on at the time you
spoke to Mr. Russert?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Is it possible that under Sorenson it might say "fax
a statement"?

A. Oh, it may say, "or fax a statement —"

Q. Okay.

A. — yeah.

Q. And does that indicate that you had five talking
points there? One, two, three, four and five, and one would
be that the Vice President's Office asked the CIA to send
someone down to Niger; two, that he obviously reported back to
the Vice President's Office which is headed by "Scooter"
Libby; and three — and when I say talking points, these are
talking about what Matthews said, not that you agree with
those statements. And there are four, in fact, the point is
that you disagree with them. Correct?

A. Correct, yeah.

Q. And then the fourth point was not definitive. Is —

A. Correct.

Q. — that in reference to the NIE?

A. Yes.

Q. And there's a fifth blank there. Do you know what
the blank was?

A. I think — excuse me, I'm sorry.

Q. Okay.

A. It's probably not a reference to the NIE. It's
probably a reference to Ambassador Wilson — the cable of
Ambassador Wilson's findings, they were not definitive —

Q. Okay.

A. — as to whether or not Iraq had it which is what
Director Tenet had, had testified, sir.

Q. Okay. And then there's a fifth —

A. Had, had put in his statement. I'm sorry.

Q. Okay. So besides the three points in what Chris
Matthews says, and then the fourth point which is to make the
point that Ambassador Wilson's conclusions or findings were
not definitive, there's then a five that is a blank. Do you
recall what the fifth point was?

A. I don't. It's over the name of Stephen Hadley on
the sheet and I don't know if there was a fifth that I didn't
write or the fifth was that it was Hadley who was told by, by
George Tenet and not us.

Q. And did you actually, after this, writing these
notes, did you use those talking points as far as you can
recall, to talk to anyone about these five points?

A. I think I may have talked to Adam Levine about them.
Adam Levine is a person who works in the White House in the
Dan Bartlett Shop, I guess, the Communications Shop, and I may
have talked to Adam Levine about them so that he could then
talk to Shapiro if he made that call.

Q. But after that point did you ever talk to Mr.
Russert again about Chris Matthews' cover — coverage of the
uranium/Niger situation?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. And have you talked to Chris — Tim Russert since
your — since July 14th? Have you talked to him about either
Ambassador Wilson, or the leak, or the leak investigation?

A. Did you say Tim Russert in the previous question?

Q. Yes.

A. And then you just corrected — okay. Did I talk to
Tim Russert about —

Q. Since, since July 14th when the Novak column
appeared, have you spoken to Tim Russert about the
uranium/Niger issue?

A. I — no, I think not.

Q. Have you spoken to him about the leak investigation?

A. Not directly, but I did speak to him once.

Q. Okay. And, and what do you mean by not directly?

A. I mean, I spoke to him but not — I didn't talk to
him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at
one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.

Q. Okay. And did you talk to him about — besides
asking him if he would be willing to your lawyer, did you talk
about the substance of the leak investigation?

A. No.

Q. Did you indicate whether or not you thought you were
involved in the leak?

A. Whether I thought I was involved in the leak?

Q. Right, to Mr. Russert.

A. No.

Q. And did you ask him what his position would be about
whether he would testify or not if asked?

A. No.

Q. And do you know the time when you reached out to
talk to Mr. Russert?

A. A few weeks back.

Q. Okay. A few weeks back being in March of 2004 or —

A. February, March, somewhere in there.

Q. And have you spoken to Mr. Russert since?

A. No.

Q. And speaking of that, you mentioned at the end of
your first day of testimony that you haven't talked to people
to refresh your recollection because of the pending case.
Have you, have you talked to people about your — other than
your lawyer, have you talked to other people about the content
of your interviews with the FBI on two occasions?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Have you talked to people other than your
lawyer, Mr. Tate, about what transpired in the Grand Jury the
last time?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you talked to the Vice President about the fact
that you were interviewed by the FBI?

A. I have told the Vice President each time I was
absent from duty, if you will, that, you know, he's used to
having me around. If I was not going to be around, I have
told him that I had to be absent for this matter.

Q. And have you told him when you returned from either
an interview or the Grand Jury appearance what it is that you
were asked or what documents that you were shown during the
interview or Grand Jury appearance?

A. No, sir.

Q. Has he asked you anything about that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you told anyone else besides your attorney what
you have been asked in interviews or by the Grand Jury?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you shared with anybody any documents or
described documents that you were shown?

A. No, sir.

Q. And have you spoken to Karl Rove about the
investigation once the investigation began?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, getting back to your conversation with Mr.
Russert, you said that when you spoke to Mr. Russert in July
that you remembered something that you, that you thought you
were hearing for the first time about Wilson's wife working at
the CIA. Correct?

A. That I remembered something that I thought I was —

Q. That you believed that what Mr. Russert was telling
you about Wilson's wife working at the CIA was something that
you were learning for the first time. Correct?

A. Yes, sir, that's my recollection.

Q. And that you have a recollection of that fact
striking you at the time as if being something new you'd
learned. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there any reason why you wouldn't have shared
that with the Vice President after you learned that from Mr.
Russert?

A. No, sir.

Q. And do you have any recollection of letting the Vice
President know what you had learned from Russert at that time?

A. No. But if I can explain and maybe amend the
previous one. There's no reason that I would not share that
content with him. The question — the only question is, did I
have a time with him when I had the time to go into that with
him. Remember, I, I think I learned this on the 11th, then I
met with — I heard, you know — I had the discussion with
Rove on the 11th. I don't know if I saw him that — this was
sort of, I recalled, as being late in the day. I don't know
if I saw him that night. The next morning I didn't have any
private time with him until the airplane at which point he was
giving me discussion about the, the card that I wrote, the
talking points that he wanted me to use with the press. So
there's no reason I wouldn't have talked with him about it. I
do not know if in fact I did talk with him about it right
then.

Q. So you're trying to recall in your mind whether or
not, one, you had the opportunity to talk to him about it; and
two, whether during the opportunity on Air Force Two that you
discussed it?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you're certain that you talked to Mr. Rove after
you talked to Mr. Russert?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And if Mr. Rove — are you certain that that
happened on July 11th as opposed to July 10th that you spoke
to Mr. Rove?

A. I remember it as being the 11th.

Q. And what's your best recollection of the time of
day?

A. I recall it as being later in the day. The reason
is because I believe that when I went to see him I knew the
Tenet statement was locked down. It hadn't come out yet, you
know, but I thought it was coming out in a way which had a lot
of what we wanted but not everything that we wanted.

Q. And is it fair to say in trying to figure out
whether or not you spoke to the Vice President about what you
learned from Mr. Russert and from your conversation with Mr.
Rove, the fact that it's later in the day with Mr. Rove tends
to make it less likely that you talked to the Vice President
that day about the issue because you may have had less time?

A. Yeah. I mean, I often see him — I often have
private time with him in the morning and then don't have
private time again with him all day. So it makes it less
likely in a chronological sense, there would be less
opportunity. But there's many days where I just don't see him
again after — privately after 9:00 in the morning.

Q. And is there any reason why you would have to tell
him privately that Russert and Novak were saying that Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA?

A. No, it's just the sorts of things I usually discuss
with him when I have a meeting with him, and I don't think I
had a meeting with him. That's a better way to put it, I
guess.

Q. And if you were to find out that Karl Rove had left
the White House in the morning of July 11th to go on vacation,
and was actually driving to another state, would that make it
more likely in your mind that you may have spoken to Mr. Rove
about the conversation with Mr. Russert on the 10th?

A. Well, either on the 10th or in the morning, yeah.
The day tends to feel alike inside the West Wing. It's all
closed in, so —

Q. Now, when you spoke to Mr. Cooper on the 12th, and
you, you described to us a conversation in which you explained
to him that it would be unusual or not consistent with your
understanding that the Agency would tell someone who had sent
them on a trip. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Why would it be so odd if hypothetically speaking
the Vice President had called up and asked that someone take a
trip to Niger? What would be so wrong with telling the person
assigned that task that this is coming from the Vice
President?

A. The Vice President's discussions with his briefer
are supposed to be, you know, confidential between them, and I
wouldn't have thought — and I think this is what I told to
Mr. Cooper, I wouldn't think that the Agency would tell
somebody, a non-agency person going on a mission like this,
that it was the Vice President who asked, particularly because
it wasn't just the Vice President who asked, and he hadn't
asked for this mission, he had asked generally, you know, a
question.

Q. Now, after you heard from — going back a moment —
after you told — learned, as you recall, from Mr. Russert
that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, did you share that with
your press person, Cathie Martin?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Is there any reason why you wouldn't share with the
press person, or your communications person, the fact that
reporters seem to have this story?

A. No, I don't think there's a reason, but I don't
recall if I did or not.

Q. And when you told Mr. Cooper, as you say, that
reporters are saying that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, who
were the reporters, in plural, that you were referring to?

A. I think what I said was reporters are telling us.
And I knew from Mr. Russert. He had told me all the reporters
are, are, you know — all the reporters know it about the
wife. That I was referring, when I said the reporters are
telling us, I was referring to Russert having told me, and Mr.
Rove having told me that, that Mr. Novak had said it to him.

Q. Did Mr. Cooper indicate any surprise or — back it
up. Did Mr. Cooper say, yeah, I've heard that too?

A. He did not say that.

Q. Did he give (sic) anything to indicate that he had
heard this before you mentioned it to him?

A. No. I don't know Mr. Cooper. This is my first
discussion that I ever had with Mr. Cooper, and he did not
indicate one way or the other and I didn't take anything from
his voice.

Q. And when you spoke to Ms. Miller over that weekend
and you told her that reporters were saying that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA, did she indicate to you that she had heard
that already?

A. No, she did not.

Q. And you believe you spoke to Mr. Kessler at some
point and told him that reporters were saying that Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA. Did Mr. Kessler tell you that he had
heard that before?

A. I'm not sure when I talked to Mr. Kessler. It might
have been the following week after the — about this point. I
talked to Mr. Kessler that weekend. On the point about the
wife, I'm not sure when I had that discussion with Mr.
Kessler, whether it was on the day he was at the zoo or during
the following week, and I don't recall him saying anything at
the time about whether he had heard it before or not.

Q. Did any reporter that you told about reporters were
saying that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA indicate to you
that they had already heard that account?

A. No.

Q. Now, after your conversation with Mr. Cooper, and —
do you have an approximation of how long the conversation with
Mr. Cooper lasted on the 12th?

A. Somewhere between five and 15 minutes or something,
I guess.

Q. Did you get off the phone and indicate to anyone at
any time that you had forgotten to tell something to Mr.
Cooper?

A. One of these phone calls I forgot to cover one of
the points on the card, a deep background point or one of the
things that the Vice President wanted me to cover. Not the
quote, that I covered, but one of the more general — some of
the — some — something on the card that was more general. I
think the last thing on the card but I can't remember what it
was. And I may have said that to Cathie when I reported back
to her. I can't remember if it was Cooper or somebody else
that I forgot to —

Q. Whoever it was, whichever reporter it was that you
forgot to tell that point, did you call that reporter back to
give them that omitted point?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Did you instruct anyone else to call that person
back?

A. Not specifically for that. Cathie had to
eventually, in the early part of the following week, had to
call Cooper back, Mr. Cooper back, and I can't recall if when
she said that, I also said, well cover that point, if he was
the guy I didn't cover it with. It's a long way of saying I
don't recall, I guess.

Q. Do you know if you spoke to Cooper again after — on
July 12th after you hung up the phone out at the Air Force
Base?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. And you used a phone in an office near the Air Force
Base?

A. At — in the, the lounge of the Air Force Base.
There's offices near it.

Q. And was Jennifer Mayfield present for the
conversation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was she paying attention to the conversation or
doing something else as far as you can recall?

A. She was sitting across the desk from me. Cathie, I
thought, was paying attention to the conversation. She was
next to me. It was more Cathie's job to pay attention to the
conversation than, than Jenny's job to pay attention to it.
She may have been doing other things, but she might have been
paying attention.

Q. And your conversation with Kessler was in the van
going to your home?

A. I believe so, sir. Yes, well, yes, yes.

Q. And after you spoke to Mr. Kessler in the van did
you speak to him again that day or that weekend yourself?

A. I don't remember whether I had a second conversation
with him that day or not. I think I had a second conversation
with him the following week. I may have had a second
conversation with him that day.

Q. And where were you in the van when you were having
this conversation with Mr. Kessler?

A. You know, we've taken these van rides with people
from Andrews many times now, and I don't recall specifically.
I would say based on practice I was either in the second seat
after the — you know, the row after the driver or up in the
front seat in the shotgun seat, as they call it, the one next
to the driver. You know, my family and kids — I think Jenny
and Cathie were all there, I think.

Q. Okay. And were either Jenny or Cathie, being
Jennifer Mayfield or Cathie Martin, paying attention to your
conversation with Glen Kessler as far as you know?

A. Well, I hope Cathie was, but I don't know.

Q. And in, in the breakdown of responsibilities would
be it more Cathie Martin's job to pay attention to the
conversation than Jennifer Mayfield?

A. Yes. I mean, Jenny often does — Jenny Mayfield
does often try and pay attention but it's, it's Cathie's job
to be paying attention.

Q. And again, you mention that when you spoke to Mr.
Kessler you thought he was at — you recalled him being at the
zoo. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So this was otherwise a day off for Mr. Kessler?

A. Well, I don't know. I don't know about — he, he
had paper and pencil with him. I don't know how he does his
business. He was at the zoo. I remember that he had to — he
needed a minute to get himself resituated and so there was a
minute where we waited while he sat down on a bench or
something, I guess, or moved his kids or something like that.

Q. Okay. And then any other reporters you recall
speaking to that day besides Mr. Cooper, Mr. Kessler and
speaking to Ms. Miller, Judith Miller, sometime that weekend?

A. Evan Thomas I think I talked to that day.

Q. And was that once or more than once as far as you
recall?

A. Evan Thomas?

Q. Yes.

A. I think just once.

Q. And let me show you what's — as you sit here today
you recall talking to Mr. Kessler about the fact that
reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Correct?

A. I recall talking to Kessler at some point about this
issue. I can't recall specifically whether I talked to him
after the Novak conversation — I'm sorry, after the Novak
article came out, so in the following week or that day, on the
12th. I'm, I'm a little hazy on it I'm afraid, I'm sorry.
The — if I talked to him on the 12th, then I'm certain I
would have said all the reporters are telling us that. I
think that's what I said, reporters told us that. I think
that's what I said to him, but — sorry, it's less clear to me
if it was after the 14th.

Q. And let me show you what has been marked as — a
column from October 12th from the Washington Post.
MS. KEDIAN. 4846.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. 4846. If we could just show Mr. Libby the column
that's 4846, 4847, 4848. And first of all, before you read
it, it's an article entitled, "FBI Agents Tracing Linkeage on
Envoy CIA Operative." Do you see that the — it's underlined
at various portions in the article. I'll make that Grand Jury
Exhibit 70. Do you recognize — does that underlining appear
to be your underlining?

A. I don't, I don't usually underline like this, but it
could be my underlining. But I don't, I don't usually do it
this way.

Q. Okay. And look — this is an article written
October 12th describing the leak investigation. And if you
look at page — the second page, page 4847, the last paragraph
carrying over to page 4848 says,
"Novak reported that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA on
weapons of mass destruction, that she was the person who
suggested Wilson for the job. Officials have said
Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon and National
Security Council senior director for African Affairs was
not chosen because of his wife. On July 12th, two days
before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an
administration official that the White House had not
paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA sponsored
trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by
his wife, an analyst for the Agency working on weapons
of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned
and the purpose of this disclosure did not appear to
generate — to be to generate an article, but rather to
undermine Wilson's report, period."
Do you recall reading that in the Post, the Washington Post?

A. I recall reading it, probably on October 12th.

Q. Okay. And in essence, one Washington Post reporter
is saying that on July 12th a Washington Post reporter was
told about Wilson's wife by a senior administration official
but did not use her name but described what she did. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had talked to Glen Kessler, a Washington
Post reporter on July 12th. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. When you read this on October 12th did you think
that that was describing your conversation with Glen Kessler
on July 12th?

A. No, sir.

Q. No, sir? Did it even dawn, dawn on you that reading
this on October 12th, that the conversation being described in
that article as occurring between a Washington Post reporter
and an administration official on July 12th was your
conversation?

A. I had had a conversation on July 12 with a
Washington Post reporter and that dawned on me, as you say.
But what this described was not my conversation.

Q. Well, let's go through it then. It says here, now
this was a conversation — July 12th was on a Saturday.
Correct?

A. July 12 was Saturday, yes.

Q. So a non-work day. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Mr. Kessler, when you spoke to him, was at the
zoo. Correct?

A. Correct. Yes, sir.

Q. Not in his office. Correct?

A. Not by the time I spoke to him. That's right, sir.

Q. And so, as you sit here today are you aware of any
other administration official who called any Washington Post
reporter that Saturday?

A. No, sir.

Q. And it says here, on July 12th, a Post reporter was
told by an administration official that the White House had
not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA sponsored
trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his
wife, an analyst with the Agency working on weapons of mass
destruction, period. Did you indicate at any time to Mr.
Kessler that people weren't paying attention to the report, to
the report by Mr. Wilson, because it had been a boondoggle set
up by his wife?

A. Quite to the contrary. I had indicated to him, and
in talking to him I pointed out the George Tenet article which
made it clear that we had not been informed about the Wilson
mission nor did we receive his report. So I would not have
been saying, and did not say to him, that we didn't pay
attention to his trip because it was a boondoggle, I would say
we didn't know about his trip, we didn't know about the report
prior to the State of the Union — yes, prior to the State of
the Union and the sixteen words, and that when we — of
course, later when we do see it, we see that the CIA didn't
pay attention to it either in the sense of finding it
definitive, not because it was a boondoggle by his wife but
because it was — because on its face it was not definitive
and on its face it actually had evidence within it that said
that Iraq may have been seeking uranium. So this is — this
first half of the sentence is contra to what I would have been
saying to him.

Q. And you were speaking to Mr. Kessler and the other
reporters on July 12th at the direction of the Vice President,
correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And the Vice President had written notes on the
Novak column from July 6th that you see that says, "did his
wife send him on a junket"? Correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And there were times when the Vice President asked
questions like that, whether or not his wife had been sent on
a junket. Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. As you're sitting here today you're saying it didn't
happen and the Vice President, who was concerned about why
Wilson was sent on this junket who then asked you to speak to
the reporters on July 12th, and you spoke to Mr. Kessler on
July 12th and you didn't relay a concern that the
administration, including your boss, didn't take this
seriously in part because this was viewed as a boondoggle or a
junket?

A. My presentation, which was based on the Tenet
presentation, was that we didn't know about the trip, and we,
and we didn't get his, we didn't get his report until months
after the State of the Union Address. And that when we did
see his report, we didn't find it definitive or probative
against the proposition in the President's speech, and that
the CIA, as Director Tenet said the day before — the reason I
was calling him was because of the July 11, Director Tenet
statement. The July 11 Director Tenet statement made all of
these points which I made back to him. He, remember, was
calling me
about — I shouldn't say remember. He, he called me. He had
a call into us which was about Secretary Powell's February 5th
presentation and that's sort of why I was talking to him.
That's why I was calling back to him. But my agenda was to go
through the Tenet statement. The Tenet statement makes
arguments very different from, from these arguments with
regard to the first half of the sentence.

Q. And — but it's fair to say that he doesn't indicate
that that's the only point made by the administration official
that called him. The person could call up and say the Vice
President didn't request the trip, the Vice President didn't
know about the trip, the Vice President didn't learn about the
trip until six months ago. The trip was not dispositive, the
trip in fact corroborated what the Vice President believed.
There's an NIE, there's a January 24th document, there are
lots of points that could be made. What this article says is
that the person made the point, at least this point, that
Wilson's trip was given less weight because it was viewed as a
boondoggle. I'm not asking you whether or not you made
additional points to Mr. Kessler. I'm saying, is it possible
that you told Mr. Kessler on July 12th that one of the things
that makes this report by Mr. Wilson less credible is that it
appeared to be a boondoggle set up by his wife?

A. No, sir, I don't think so. Mr. Kessler said to me,
"was this a boondoggle?" on whichever day I spoke to him.

Q. And what did you say?

A. He raised it with me. I said, my — what I think is
important about this is how he may have gotten the wrong
information, not that it was a boondoggle.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Kessler it was a boondoggle?

A. No, I mean, it is a boondoggle in the sense that the
guy got a trip where he did some work and he had, you know, he
had a trip just like a lawyer goes to a conference. You know,
take — conference about depositions, how you take
depositions. You know, you might have a conference in Hawaii.
You could have the same conference, you know, in your home
town but people go to Hawaii. They do a little bit of work
and they get some time on the beach. It's a boondoggle. So I
don't think it — I wouldn't say it wasn't a boondoggle, but I
never thought that the boondoggle was what — was the
important point here. The important point to me was that the
CIA didn't find it definitive and in fact had evidence in it
to the opposite.

Q. So in your mind, while it may not be important, the
trip that Wilson went on was in part a boondoggle. Correct?

A. Yes, not, not in a bad sense but it was a
boondoggle. But, but I didn't use the term, he used the term.

Q. So Mr. Kessler brought up boondoggle in the
conversation, whether it was one?

A. I tend to think he brought it up in a conversation,
not in the van, in a different conversation.

Q. How many conversations that week did you have with
Mr. Kessler?

A. Well, I think it was two.

Q. And do you believe the boondoggle was in the second
conversation, not on July 12th?

A. Yes, that's what I think. But I, I don't think it
was in the van because my recollection, you know, could be
wrong, but my recollection is that when he raised it, I was
standing.

Q. You were standing?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. Standing where?

A. I don't remember. But I remember sort of either
sitting or leaning down after he said it because — not that
it was that startling but just to then address the point about
why I thought it wasn't — the key point was not whether it
was a boondoggle or not, why I thought the key point with
that — on this part of it, that the — how, how Ambassador
Wilson might have gotten the wrong information.

Q. And did you ever indicate to him that in fact
Wilson's trip was not a boondoggle?

A. No.

Q. And in your conversation, is this the first time you
described, either in the Grand Jury or to the FBI the fact
that Mr. Kessler raised the topic of a boondoggle with you?

A. I don't recall. It might be.

Q. And in this conversation where he asked you whether
or not it was a boondoggle, do you recall anything else that
he brought up with you?

A. Now, let me be clear. It is not the first time, as
you said. I'm just remembering now, I'm sorry. What I've
previously said, which I think is still true and maybe I've
been overly clear here, is that I recall a conversation with a
Washington Post reporter where the Washington Post reporter
talked to me about a boondoggle. I think it was Mr. Kessler
and I'm, I'm thinking that it was Kessler. I talked to
Kessler in the van. I'm thinking that the conversation was
Kessler, I'm pretty sure of it, but anyway that's what I said
before, and I did discuss boondoggle before, I think.

Q. And when you say before, in your first Grand Jury
appearance?

A. No, I mean with the FBI agents when they interviewed
me.

Q. And did you discuss — is it fair to say that the
article continues that Plame's name was never mentioned. Is
it fair to say that in your conversation with Mr. Kessler you
never mentioned Valerie Plame's name?

A. Yes, I don't recall mentioning it with Mr. Kessler.
Can I — excuse me, but may I finish the previous sentence
though because you had started to ask me about it.

Q. Sure.

A. I just don't want it to go unstated if it's okay.
The previous sentence, I said the first half. The second half
ends with, "an analyst with the Agency working on weapons of
mass destruction." I don't, I don't think I told him that
either because I don't think I knew she was an analyst.

Q. And you did know from the Vice President back in
June that she worked in the functional office of
counterproliferation. Correct?

A. True, but I don't think I remembered that when I had
this conversation. I think what I was remembering here was
what Tim Russert had told me and what Karl Rove had told me
that Bob Novak had told Karl Rove which was that she worked at
the CIA. I don't think I knew she was an analyst until after,
some time later. I'm not sure I know it today, but I think
the analyst part came out of either Novak or something after
that.

Q. It's possible, striking the work analyst, that there
was a discussion about the fact that she worked at the Agency
in weapons of mass destruction?

A. I don't think so. I think all I, I, I would have
discussed at that point was the same as what I would discuss
with Mr. Cooper was that she worked at the Agency. I don't
think I recalled at that point the weapons of mass destruction
point.

Q. And did you ever see this copy, this document here,
the article from October 12th that's underlined, do you recall
seeing this item, being pages 4846 through 4848, with the
underlines before?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Now, your conversation with Judith Miller on the
weekend, which would be July 12th or July 13, do you recall if
prior to the last, the last Grand Jury appearance whether you
had ever mentioned that telephone conversation with Judith
Miller to the FBI in your two prior interviews?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And as you sit here today, are you certain that you
told the FBI about your conversations with Judith Miller on
July 12th or July 13 with the FBI?

A. Yes, sir. That's my recollection of it.

Q. Was there any reason not to tell the FBI about those
conversations?

A. No, I, I think I did talk to them. Well, only if
they didn't ask. But I think I did talk to them about it
and — yeah, I think I did talk to them about it.

Q. Now, was there a — on July 16th was there a
birthday party for former President Ford at the White House?

A. I've seen — I don't, I don't really know. I know
that there was a — at some point there was a birthday party
for — I didn't go to it. It would have been on the Vice
President's schedule so I was aware of it at some point, and I
believe it was in one of your — there was a reference to it
in one of the subpoenas or document requests from you all, so
I saw that there, but I don't know it as I sit here.

Q. Do you know if the Vice President attended that
party?

A. I think he would have and I think he did. You know,
President Ford was his employer at one point. He worked for
him and I'm pretty sure he would have gone to that if he was
in town. I think he did.

Q. And was Alan Greenspan an honored guest at President
Ford's 90th birthday party?

A. I don't know, sir, I didn't go.

Q. And is Andrea Mitchell married to Alan Greenspan?

A. That she is.

Q. And did you talk to the Vice President after the
party about whether or not he had any conversations with
Andrea Mitchell during that party?

A. Not, not that I recall.

Q. Do you know if anyone discussed with Andrea Mitchell
Wilson or his wife at that birthday party?

A. I don't know anything about that birthday party.

Q. Moving forward to September — hold one second.
Let's direct your attention to September 28th when the
Washington Post comes out with an article that says there's an
investigation into the leak. Do you, do you recall that
event?

A. I do, sir.

Q. And when the article came out there were a number of
different stories that appeared in September or early October
about the leak and the leak investigation. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Including the one we just went over on
October 12th describing a July 12th conversation involving an
administration official. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. There's also an article that talked about the — for
lack of a better term, one by two by six, where it said that
one administration official said that two, two officials were
calling out to six reporters talking about Wilson's wife.
Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And there was also an article that appeared where
the Washington Post reported that Time magazine had also
reported in July that administration officials had told Time
reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in fact, in that Washington Post article about
the Time magazine the author pointed out that in the same Time
magazine article that indicated an administration official had
told Time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, that you had
been quoted by name?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the way the article was written in the
Washington Post it certainly seemed to imply that perhaps
"Scooter" Libby was a source for the Time magazine columns
since he's quoted there. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you took notice of that when you read it in the
paper I take it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is it a fact that you shared that article with
your staff so they could see that the Washington Post was
writing that you had been quoted in a Time magazine column
that talked about Wilson's wife and implied that you were a
source. Correct?

A. I quite likely shared it with the staff. I don't
recall it but I quite likely did.

Q. Why don't I — and so we're clear, that Time
magazine article was written in part by Mr. Cooper. Correct?

A. By Mr. Cooper I thought, yes. This was an e-mail —
what do you call it, an article on their website, not in the
magazine, and whatever the term is, article or story or
whatever it is.

Q. And we'll pull out 3754. Is it fair to say that the
article in the magazine had appeared with a partial quote from
you? And that then your staff had called Time magazine about
a quote, not pertaining to Wilson's wife, and complained that
since you had given them a verbatim quote, why didn't they run
the whole thing?

A. Yes, Cathie Martin did that, I believe.

Q. And then they basically said the way to remedy the
fact that they hadn't quoted you in full, was that they might
amplify the column on the website version so that the, the
more complete quote would appear on the internet version of
Time magazine, not in a correction to the already printed
copies. Correct?

A. Yeah, Cathie had that conversation. But that, that
was the net result. I don't know about the conversation.

Q. And if you look at document 3754, and we can mark
that as Grand Jury Exhibit 71, is that an e-mail on September
30th from Jennifer Mayfield to Cathie Martin referencing from
the ABC note with a header that says, "Scooter" wanted to make
sure that you saw the below, and then it quoted from the
Washington Post column that indicated that the Time magazine
article that talked about Wilson's wife also cited you as a
source.

A. Also quoted me as the source for the wrong quote.
Yes, sir.

Q. And you wanted to make sure that your staff knew
that some press are pointing towards you as the source for the
Time problem?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when you look at the three articles, first,
there is a Washington Post article that talks about two
officials calling six reporters and talking about Wilson's
wife before July 14th. Correct?

A. The Washington Post column. Yes, sir.

Q. And you had spoken to Mr. Cooper about Wilson's wife
before July 14th. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You had spoken to Ms. Miller about Wilson's wife
before July 14th. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had perhaps spoken to Mr. Kessler. You're
not sure of the date, spoke to him about Wilson's wife either
on the 12th or after the 14th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you had spoken with Mr. Russert for which you
believe hearing from him about Wilson's wife. Correct?

A. I believe I had heard from him, yes, sir.

Q. And you had spoken to Mr. Rove, who said he had
spoken to Mr. Novak who talked about Wilson's wife. Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. So when you read the article talking about two
officials having conversations with at least six, at least six
journalists prior to July 14th, did you think that those
articles were referring to you in part?

A. I thought it possible that they were misreferring to
me or referring to me but usually in these articles there was
some description of what the person had said which looked
different from what I had said, so I was not sure if they were
referring to me or not referring to me.

Q. So you at least saw the specter that it might be
referring to you in the articles, but you weren't sure?

A. Because I had spoken to some reporters on — before
July 14th. That's correct, sir.

Q. And certainly the Washington Post column indicating
that you had spoken to Time magazine was referring to you and
implying, but not saying, that you were the source for Time
magazine's article indicating that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at that time there was also a public statement
that came out where Scott McClellan indicated to the press at
a gaggle, I believe, that Karl Rove has nothing to do with
this leak, and that there is no White House involvement and no
involvement from Karl Rove. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at the time he was then asked questions, I
believe, turning to you and to Mr. Abrams about whether you
were involved and he sort of drew the line and said, I'm
stopping at Mr. Rove. I'm not going to go down that road.
Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were not happy with him drawing the line
where he did. Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And where were you when you heard about Karl Rove,
or how did you learn that Scott McClellan had cleared Karl
Rove and then declined to clear anyone else including you?

A. If memory serves, and it doesn't always, I think I
was at the — the, the first time this sort of came up, I was
at the — at the White House, I think, and this came out and I
believe I went to talk to Andy Card and Scott McClellan about
the time it came out. I'd have to check the dates, but I'll
explain as best as I recall it, if that's okay. And Scott
said, well, we don't want to go down the whole list. And Andy
said something about the same. And I said, you know, I didn't
feel that was quite right since I didn't talk to Novak and I
didn't think it was fair that they were saying Karl Rove
didn't speak to Novak but not saying I wasn't the one who
spoke to Novak. But I accepted that. Then as time went on it
became clear that there was no list to go down. The only
people they were really talking about was me, and I guess you
reminded me, Elliott Abrams, but I don't think he got
discussed as much as I did. And so I, you know, I went — I
felt it was unfair that they were saying that about Karl and
not about me when there was no long list, it was just — as
far as I was concerned there were only two of us that were
getting a lot of attention in part because of this, you know,
the one time I had gone on the record at the Vice President's
request, put my name in something. So, so then I called back
to say, "hey, look, there is no list. There's not a long
list, there's just two of us and I think you ought to be
saying something about me too."

Q. Now, in your conversation with Mr. Card and Mr.
McClellan and Mr. Card is the Chief of Staff?

A. Correct. I'm sorry, Andy Card, Chief of Staff.

Q. And Mr. Scott McClellan was the press person at —

A. Press Spokesman I think it's called, uh-hum.

Q. Where did that conversation take place as you best
recall?

A. I think the conversation with Andy Card took place
in Andy Card's office. I think the conversation with
McClellan took place on the margins of a senior staff meeting
or in the corridor near the Roosevelt Room. In and around
some other meeting as best I recall. I mean, I have many
conversations along these lines.

Q. They were separate conversations then?

A. Yes.

Q. You spoke to Card alone and McClellan on the fringes
of a meeting and not together?

A. That's my recollection.

Q. And when you spoke about the fact that Mr. Rove had
been cleared did you indicate to either one of them that in
fact Mr. Rove had spoken to Mr. Novak some time prior to July
14th?

A. No, I don't think I did.

Q. Was there a reason you didn't share that fact with
them?

A. It wasn't what I was most concerned about. What I
was most concerned about was getting them to say something
about that I had not been the one that spoke to Novak.

Q. But when you heard about the investigation and heard
about the Rove clearing did you think to yourself, it's a
little odd that they're saying that Mr. Rove had nothing to do
with this when in fact I know that Mr. Rove spoke to Mr. Novak
and told me what was coming in the column before it ran?

A. You know, I didn't in those terms. But my — what
Mr. Rove had told me was that Novak had told him about the
wife and had already knew it by the time he spoke to Karl
Rove. So I didn't, I didn't think that — I didn't raise that
argument. I didn't think that Mr. Rove had spoken to Novak
and I knew that I hadn't spoken to Novak.

Q. In your conversations with Card and McClellan or
anyone else did — as far as you know, did anyone else in the
White House know that Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak had spoken before
July 14th?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. As you sit here today do you know if anyone in the
White House besides you and Mr. Rove is aware of the
conversation that took place between Mr. Rove and Novak prior
to July 14th?

A. I don't think so.

Q. And where were you when you called back to say, hey,
wait a minute, the list is a lot shorter than they thought and
I'd like to become number two on the list?

A. I was in Wyoming. Well — yes, Wyoming, I think.

Q. Were you with the Vice President?

A. Not with him physically. He was at his home, I was
in the condo that we rent.

Q. And did you talk this issue through with the Vice
President before you called back to revisit the question of
whether you should be cleared?

A. That's interesting. I, I probably did but I don't
recall. I don't, I don't recall. I probably did either
before — you said, before? And I'm sure I talked to him, I
assume I talked to him about it before or after. I don't know
that I did before I called Andy Card.

Q. Did you seek the Vice President's help to make sure
that Andy Card got the message that this is something you'd
really like to have happen?

A. At some point I did.

Q. And what did you do?

A. Told him that I thought it was unfair that they
had — Scott McClellan had said something about Karl Rove and
not something about me since I didn't talk to Novak either.
And — or I shouldn't say either. Since I was not, I was not
the source of the leak to Novak, and told him that I, I
thought, you know, it should be fixed. What I can't remember
is whether I had this conversation with him the first time I
got rejected or the second time. I'm pretty sure I had that
conversation with him at some point. You know, it could be
that the second time they just did it without his, without his
intervening, and the first time they didn't. I just — I
don't recall.

Q. Do you recall if the Vice President ever picked up
the phone and called back to Card or McClellan and let them
know that this was something he wanted to see happen?

A. I hope he did. I don't recall that I ever — and he
may have told me that he had, I just don't recall whether it
was the first time and we failed or the second time and we
succeeded. I don't, I don't remember.

Q. But at this point in early October, it's front page
stories, it's going crazy about who the leak is. Correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. And everyone saw Rove get cleared. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And "Scooter" Libby is sitting out there alone as
someone whose named but not cleared. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So it was very important for you to have someone
come out and say it's not him. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you wouldn't remember if the Vice President told
you, hey, I just picked up the phone and called Andrew Card or
Scott McClellan and you're being taken care of?

A. As I say, I think, I think he did do that at one
point and I just don't remember whether I actually tried with
him fruitlessly the first time when they didn't change it or
if it was the second time. You know, my — the Vice
President, I think, would support me on either occasion, I
don't have any doubt about that. And so — I'm just telling
you what I recall.

Q. Did you tell the Vice President that you had
actually spoken to Time magazine and Mr. Cooper and had
discussed Wilson's wife's work with Mr. Cooper?

A. I think this conversation was about whether — the
leak to Novak. I don't know that I discussed that with the
Vice President. I did tell him, of course, that we had spoken
to the people who he had told us to speak to on the weekend.
I think at some point I told him that. But —

Q. At some point meaning in July or —

A. July, yeah. July 14, you know, the Monday or so
afterwards.

Q. Did you tell him in July 14th or afterwards that
when you had spoke to the people on the telephone you had
relayed to them this conversation about Wilson's wife working
at the CIA?

A. I don't recall.

Q. So as far as when October came around and the front
page headlines are saying that two officials may have called
six reporters, did you have any idea whether or not the Vice
President understood that you had contacted those reporters
and actually discussed with them Wilson's wife's employment?

A. I don't, I don't recall whether he under — whether
he knew that or whether I said something to him at the time.
What I was clear with him about was I was not the person who
talked to Mr. Novak and, and leaked this bit about the wife.

Q. But it's fair to say, that as was clear in the open
press, they were looking into not just who the leak was to
Novak but who was calling out to reporters in the period prior
to Novak's column. Correct?

A. Yes. And, and he knew that I was calling out to
reporters in the weekend beforehand because of the George
Tenet statement. So — but, but — I'm sorry.

Q. But did he know that you had talked to those
reporters about Wilson's wife when you talked to them?

A. That's an interesting question. I, I don't know.

Q. Did you bring it — did you — in late September and
early October did you at all bring to Vice President Cheney's
attention, by the way, you should know that I did speak to
Cooper, the author of the Time magazine article, and we
discussed Wilson's wife. And I spoke to a Washington Post
reporter and discussed Wilson's wife. And I talked to Judith
Miller and discussed Wilson's wife. Did you have any
conversation where you relayed that information to the Vice
President?

A. I think I did. Let me bring you back to that
period. I think I did in that there was a conversation I had
with the Vice President when all this started coming out and
it was this issue as to, you know, who spoke to Novak. I told
the Vice — you know, there was — the President said anybody
who knows anything should come forward or something like that,
or the articles were talking about it. I went to the Vice
President and said, you know, I was not the person who talked
to Novak. And he something like, "I know that." And I said,
you know, "I learned this from Tim Russert." And he sort of
tilted his head to the side a little bit and then I may have
in that conversation said, I talked to other — I talked to
people about it on the weekend. I don't, I don't remember
whether I did that or not at that point, but I may have.

Q. You're just saying, "I don't know whether I did that
or not but I may have." Are you describing your conversation
over the weekend of July 12th, or are you describing that
you're not sure — strike that. Forget that question.
Are you — when you say you're not sure whether you
said that, are you saying you're not sure whether you told
Vice President Cheney in the fall about your conversation in
July, or did you tell him in the fall that you weren't sure
what you had said in July?

A. The former, if I got it right.

Q. Okay. So you're not, so you're not sure whether you
told the Vice President in the fall about the fact that you
had conversations in July with reporters about Wilson's wife?

A. Well, I told him about Russert, that I had learned
it from Russert. And I think at that point I, I may have told
him about the — that I had talked about the wife to Cooper.
I just don't recall that. But what was important to me was to
let him know I wasn't the Russert — I wasn't the person who
leaked the information to Mr. Novak, and that in fact I had
heard it from Russert, Mr. Russert, at which point it was well
known, that Mr. Russert told me it was well-known, known to
all the reporters.

Q. And was this a conversation you had in person or on
telephone with the Vice President?

A. In person.

Q. And where was it?

A. This, I think, was at his desk in the White House.

Q. In the White House. It was after he had returned —
you were in Wyoming for awhile. Do you know what dates you
were in Wyoming with him?

A. I don't offhand, although it, it, it ran into the
first part of your document subpoena, I think, or the FBI's
request for documents. So that may help fix it, but that's in
the calendar, I can find that. This, this discussion, I
think, was before we left on that trip. I mean, not
immediately before. It was earlier.

Q. Before, I take —

A. It was earlier. Before we left on that trip. I
don't, I don't think it was as late as the trip. I think it
was earlier when the articles were first —

Q. And as best you can recall, you told him that you
did not speak to Novak, but that you did speak to Cooper about
this issue, but that you had learned the information from Mr.
Russert?

A. I think what I told him was I was not the source of
the leak to Mr. Novak. That I, that I in fact had heard it
from Mr. Russert and that he had told me all — you know, lots
of reporters, all the reporters knew about it. And I don't
know if I then went on to tell him that I had discussed it
with the reporters in — over the, over the July 12th weekend
or not. I can't remember.

Q. And you said he tilted your (sic) head. What did
you understand — tilted his head, not your head. What did
you understand from his gesture or reaction in tilting his
head?

A. That the Tim Russert part caught his attention. You
know, that he — he reacted as if he didn't know about the Tim
Russert thing or he was rehearing it, or reconsidering it or
something like that.

Q. And, and —

A. New, new sort of information. Not something he had
been thinking about.

Q. And did he at any time tell you, "Well, you didn't
learn it from Tim Russert, you learned it from me? Remember,
back in June you and I talked about the wife working —"

A. No.

Q. "— at the CIA?"

A. No.

Q. Did he indicate any concern that you had done
anything wrong by telling reporters what you had learned prior
to July 14th?

A. No.

Q. Did you share with anyone else on your staff the
fact that you had had these conversations with Cooper, Miller,
Kessler, et cetera about what Russert had told you?

A. Well, Cathie Martin was sitting next to me when I
had the conversation with Cooper when I talked about — I
didn't say Russert to Mr. Cooper, but I did say reporters are
telling us that, she was next to me for that conversation for
the intent of — for the purpose of listening to me, so —

Q. Let me approach you with what we'll mark as Grand
Jury Exhibit 71 (sic) which is Bates Stamped 2518, and we can
maybe put this one on the projector.
MS. KEDIAN. Seventy-two.
MR. FITZGERALD. Seventy-two, okay.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. I'll hand you a copy of what we'll mark as Grand
Jury Exhibit 72, and ask you to look at that and tell us first
whether you've ever seen it before?
GRAND JUROR. Down a little bit —
MR. FITZGERALD. I think it — you have to move it
to the side. Yeah.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Mr. Libby, have you seen this document before?

A. Certainly the top half. It's my writing, I think.

Q. Okay.

A. Can I take a look —

Q. Sure. You were smiling. What was it that made you
laugh?

A. I was just smiling that my boss was — it looks like
my boss's handwriting and I was smiling. It looks like he's
trying to protect me a little bit, which is nice.

Q. Looking at the top of the document, is that your
handwriting? Let's break it into three portions. There is
some print above the line, there's some script below a line,
and then there's three words written in script by a hole
punch.

A. Correct, sir.

Q. Focusing on the print above the line —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. — is that all your print?

A. I'm ashamed to say it is, sir.

Q. Okay.

A. Ashamed because of the handwriting.

Q. I've seen worse. My own. Let me read to you, make
sure I have it transliterated correctly. "People have made
too much of the difference in how I described Karl and Libby,"
in brackets. What is that referring to?

A. I think this we — these were points that I was
hoping that Scott McClellan would make, I guess. Yes, I think
that's what this is.

Q. And then underneath it, it says, "I've talked to
Libby," period, and is that a suggested talking point for
Scott McClellan —

A. Yes.

Q. — to make to the press.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then it says, "I said it was ridiculous about
Karl and it's ridiculous about Libby."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was, again, what you hoped that Scott
McClellan —

A. Yes.

Q. — would say?

A. Yes.

Q. And then it said, "Libby was not the source for the
Novak story," period. "And he did not leak classified
information," period.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what you were hoping was at the end of the day,
as a result of intercession of the Vice President or others,
that that statement would be made by Scott McClellan to put
you in the footing that you're not involved in this leak?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you wrote this out. And do you recall sharing
this with the Vice President?

A. I think I wrote this out to say, this is what I
think Scott McClellan should say. And I think the Vice
President then said, "Well, let me, let me take it." And that
he then — I am recalling as I look at this now, that he then
came back to me and said that he had made the calls.

Q. And sticking on the first half of the page, above
the line with the print for the moment, had you talked to
McClellan at this point, or, or these proposed talking points,
that McClellan would use after he had a conversation with you?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. No, my question was, had you talked to McClellan —
McClellan said, I talked to Libby. I said it was ridiculous
about Karl and it's ridiculous about Libby. Had McClellan
interviewed you by this time to see whether or not you were
the source of this information being leaked?

A. I think I had talked to McClellan when I had done
these.

Q. And the language you chose for the last sentence was
that, "He did not leak classified information."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you specifically put the word classified in
there because you were concerned that you had told information
to reporters about Wilson's wife and you wanted to draw the
line in making sure that you weren't involved in leaking
classified information?

A. I think the allegations that were whipping around in
the press was that, you know, somebody had leaked classified
information and I wanted to be clear that not only I wasn't
the source of the Novak story but that I hadn't leaked
classified information. I think that's why. I think it had
more to do with what was swirling around in the press.

Q. Now, wasn't it fair to say, what was swirling around
in the press was people were saying, who outed Wilson's wife,
who told the press that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? And
you could have, you could have in the abstract asserted, I had
nothing to do with telling people that Wilson's wife worked at
the CIA? But the statement here says, "And he did not leak
classified information." Were you deliberately drawing that
language because of the fact that you had told reporters what
was being said about Wilson's wife's employment?

A. It could be.

Q. As you — I mean, how often have you prepared a
statement for someone else to say that you had not committed a
crime?

A. I think what I was doing was responding to — that I
wasn't the source of the Novak story and I hadn't told people
classified information because that's what was coming out.
Maybe, you know — that's what I thought I was doing. That's
what I thought I was doing with this.

Q. Did you tell Mr. McClellan during your conversation
with him, "By the way, just so you're not surprised, I did
talk to Mr. Cooper of Time magazine, and I did talk to a
Washington Post reporter, and I did talk to Judith Miller, I
did talk about Wilson's wife. But what I didn't do was I
didn't tell Novak, and when I did tell the reporters I
qualified it by saying that other reporters were saying the
story?"

A. No, I did not tell him all that.

Q. As, as you sit here today do you believe that Scott
McClellan has any idea that you had those conversations with
those reporters where you discussed Wilson's wife prior to
July 14th?

A. No, sir, I don't think he does because I felt — I
was happy to tell everybody anything, but I felt constrained
by what I understood to be general rules that I shouldn't be
going into a lot of the details about this stuff with people,
but I felt I had — it was fair enough for me to tell people
that I wasn't the source of the Novak story.

Q. And who had imposed the rule not to go into details
and when?

A. I think it was just a sense that, you know, because
it was an investigation we shouldn't be, you know, swapping
with people what we did or didn't do in general, but I had —
on the source of the Novak story I felt it was important
enough that I should tell him that.

Q. Didn't the President indicate to the entire staff
that anyone who had relevant information should come forward?

A. And I did. I came forward to the Vice President and
told him I would tell him anything that he wanted me to talk
to him or anybody else about, and that I was not the source of
the leak for Novak.

Q. But did you think that prevented you from sharing
with people that you had spoken to reporters? Where, where
did you get the sense from the President's direction that
people should come forward with all information the notion
that you shouldn't share any details with others?

A. I didn't get it from that. I got the sense
generally that the FBI doesn't like you talking to everybody
else about what, you know, what you think your story is. That
was my sense of it. In fact, most White House staff has been
very scrupulous about not talking to each other about what
their recollections were and stuff like that. Anyway, that
was my sense.

Q. Did you ever tell the President that you had spoken
to Mr. Cooper, Ms. Miller or Mr. Kessler about Wilson's wife
prior to July 14th?

A. No, sir. Just —

Q. And as far as you know, as you sit here today, do
you believe that the President is aware that you had those
conversations prior to July 14th?

A. No, sir. I don't know.

Q. And were you aware that the President gave a speech
in Chicago on October — on or about October 1 saying there's
no White House involvement in any leaks whatsoever that he's
aware of?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you at all concerned that while the President
was stating that there's no White House involvement in any
leaks whatsoever, that you were one of the people who may have
been referred to in the Washington Post column that two
officials calling six reporters, that you had spoken to one of
the Time magazine reporters who indicated they had been told
about Wilson's wife and may have done so before July 14th?

A. I was concerned to make sure that the Vice President
knew so he could decide what he wanted to do with it, and so I
went and told the Vice President that I was not the source of
the leak for the Novak column. And as I say, I may have
talked about the other stuff. I'm not sure.

Q. And you were very precise to tell him you weren't
the source of the Novak column. Were you as precise in
letting him know that you could have been the source for these
other columns?

A. I don't recall. What I — as I said, I'm not sure
if I told him about those others at that point. I think that
I may have but I don't recall as to what I told him that part.
What I recall is he sort of said, you know, "You don't have to
tell me, I know that you were not the leak — you were not the
source of the leak."

Q. Did you think it was something that the Vice
President and the President would want to know that if an
official in the White House had spoken to those reporters
which are now being discussed as leaks, that they learned who
the person was that spoke with them prior, prior to July 14th?

A. I would have been happy to unburden myself of it,
about all of this, and I went to the Vice President and
offered to tell him everything I knew, and he didn't want to
hear it, and I assumed that I should not go into it, and that
if he wanted to hear it, I would be happy to tell him. I'd be
happy to tell him today if you like. I have no problem
telling him what happened.

Q. I'm, I'm ask — I'm trying to fix the mindset before
the FBI interviewed you on October 6th. Did you tell the Vice
President you'd be happy to tell him everything he wants to
know?

A. Yes.

Q. In those words?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said, "You don't have to. I know you didn't do
it. I know you weren't the source of the leak," something
like that.

Q. And did you — when you offered to tell him
everything you knew, did that include things other than the
contacts that you didn't have with Novak?

A. I haven't told him anything.

Q. And when he said, "I know you're not the leak," did
you say, "Well, slow down a minute, sir, I want to tell you
one thing which is I spoke to some of these reporters before
July 14th, and they're now saying that they learned this, and
so I don't want you to be in any way misled that I didn't have
contact with them?"

A. I may have. I don't recall.

Q. Isn't that something that, I mean, how often do you
report to the Vice President to let him know that you didn't
commit a crime?

A. Well, the talking to the other reporters about it, I
don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is
what, you know — I told a couple reporters what other
reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime. But
set aside it was a crime, I don't — I did not mean to do
anything wrong or don't think I did anything wrong with it.
But I was happy to tell him absolutely everything he wanted to
know. My sense was that everyone felt a little bit
constrained about talking about this stuff because there was
talk of a criminal investigation, and therefore people didn't
want to talk about it a lot. He has a good lawyer. I assume
that if he wanted to know more, he'd go check with his lawyer
as to whether he wanted me to tell him or not.

Q. And by his lawyer, referring to whom?

A. Terry O'Donnell. His private counsel. He also has
a good lawyer in David Addington. He's a good lawyer.

Q. And when was this conversation with, with Vice
President Cheney when he told you, you didn't need to tell him
anything?

A. There are actually two, and I don't recall exactly.
They were in the fall when this sort of started to come out.

Q. Before, or after, or during the trip to Wyoming?

A. Yes. Before, or after, or during. I don't remember
exactly when it was. It was — I think there was one before,
there may have been some — there may have been a time during.
I went at it once, and then I went at it again later to be
sure that he wanted me to tell him anything. And he wanted —
you know, my, my clear sense was he did not want me to go on
so I did not go on.

Q. And what was it that led you to go back a second
time that made you want to make sure that he knew that you
were willing to tell him everything?

A. It was still out there, and there was still talk
about it. I had a second conversation with him, or maybe it's
a third. In my first conversation with him I told him, "Look,
I wasn't the source of the leak of this. In fact, I learned
it from Tim Russert. And, you know, by that point he was, you
know — other — lots of reporters knew, all the reporters
knew, he told me all the reporters knew," something like that.
So that it was Russert, but it wasn't just Russert. And as I
say, that was most of that conversation.
In the course of the document production, the FBI
sent us a request for documents, or Justice Department, I'm
not sure technically. In the course of that document
production I came across the note that is dated on or about
June 12th, and the note that is dated sort of on or about June
12 shows that I hadn't first learned it from Russert, although
that was my memory, I had first learned it when he said it to
me. And so I went back to see him and said, you know, I told
you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note
that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I
just — you know, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong, I
didn't want to leave you with the wrong statement that I heard
about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it
earlier, but I had forgotten it.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He didn't say much. You know, he said something
about, "From me?", something like that, and tilted his head,
something he does commonly, and that was that.

Q. And did you have any discussion with him at that
time about your conversations with Cooper, Kessler and Miller?

A. No, I don't think so. Not in that conversation.

Q. And, and what's the third conversation with the Vice
President?

A. I think I went back to him a second time, as I told
you before, I'm sorry, to, to re-up, volunteer again to tell
him if he wanted to know anything. I shouldn't say, I think.
I did go back a second time to tell him, sort of re-up on
offering to tell him if he wanted to know everything I did,
I'd be happy to tell him everything I did.

Q. And the, the third conversation, the one where you
pointed out that you had seen a document indicating that you
had learned this the first time from Mr. Cheney himself, the
Vice President?

A. Yes. And when I say third, I don't know the
chronological order of these.

Q. Okay. So there could have been — so that might not
have been the third conversation, it might have been the
second?

A. Something like that, yeah.

Q. And the conversation where you told the Vice
President, which is at least the second conversation when you
said, in effect, let me correct myself because I saw a
document indicating that I learned it from you, not from Mr.
Russert, the first time, was that before you had been
interviewed by the FBI?

A. Yes.

Q. And the third conversation, do you know if that was
before you were interviewed by the FBI?

A. I think they were all before I was interviewed by
the FBI.

Q. And did he ever indicate to you, other than saying
that you don't have to tell him everything, any reason why he
didn't want to know?

A. I think one of the times when I went to see him to
tell him that I wouldn't be available to him, that I would be
out for the day for an FBI interview, or something like that,
he said, you know, "Fine," and held up his hand, you know, "I
understand," and either said or I took from it, you know, we
shouldn't talk about the details of this.

Q. Now, continue on the document, and I'll just finish
off the shortest piece. There's handwriting on the left that
says, appears to say, "Tenet, Wilson and memo," above the
three hole punch.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you know whose handwriting that is?

A. Looks like the Vice President's.

Q. Okay. And do you know what — does that ring any
bells with you? Was there any discussion in your presence
about Tenet, Wilson and memo?

A. (No oral response)

Q. Okay. And then below the line, before we break, let
me just see if I read this correctly, "Has to happen today,
call out to key press saying same thing about "Scooter" as
Karl. Not going to protect —" — why don't you read it since
you know his handwriting better than me.

A. "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the
guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder
because of the incompetence of others."

Q. And if you look at the crossed out words, what do
they appear to say?

A. "This has."

Q. And any chance that it says, "the Pres"?

A. I think it says "this," not the "the".

Q. Okay.

A. I don't know. Maybe it is "the Pres".

Q. And what does the word "meat grinder" refer to as
far as you understand it?

A. I think it refers to the fact that the press, as you
say, was beginning to talk about me since I was the one — I
was not exonerated, if you will, whatever the word is, by
McClellan.

Q. And when it says, "because of the incompetence of
others," who did you understand "others" to refer to?

A. I think this refers to the, the uranium claim
getting into the State of the Union in the first place with
this uncertainty that eventually develops about it. And then
it may refer to the decision to, to treat it the way they had
treated it in early July where they said that this — that it
shouldn't have been in the State of the Union at all. I think
those two things, it could be either or both of those two
things.

Q. And do you think it all referred to any delay it
took in time for George Tenet to issue his July 11th
statement?

A. I don't know. I mean, I'm speculating on what it
is. I wouldn't have — as I, as I speculated I wouldn't have
first speculated on that.

Q. And did you think it might refer to you dealing with
the press rather than Cathie Martin?

A. No, I don't think so.
MR. FITZGERALD. Why don't we take the break from
2:30 until —
GRAND JUROR. 2:45, please.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 2:29 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the witness was recalled at 2:47 p.m.)
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Okay, Mr. Libby, sticking with Grand Jury Exhibit
seventy —
WITNESS. Sir, can I step by you just to fill this
up?
MR. FITZGERALD. Oh, sure.
WITNESS. Thank you.
GRAND JUROR. I just want to remind you that you're
still under oath. Thank you.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. And this is Grand Jury Exhibit 72.

A. Okay.

Q. In looking at the last paragraph of 72 —

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It says, "not going to protect one staffer and
sacrifice the guy" — then there's a cross out — "that was
asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder." What do you
understand, "asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder" to
mean?

A. I guess, I don't know specifically. I suppose he's
referring to the fact that I had to go talk to the press about
this stuff. I had to deal with this issue that, you know,
should not have had to have been dealt with at all, shouldn't
have had it — we shouldn't have had it in there in the first
place, or we should had it better documented, shouldn't have
had to lead to this whole issue, I guess that's what he meant.
But you'd have to ask him.

Q. And so your, your understanding, recognizing you
didn't write the language, is that you would interpret that as
there's a problem that came about because of the incompetence
of others, namely that the State of the Union had what it had
in it, and that people decided to retreat from that language
later, and that as a result you personally had to deal with
the press and now you, "Scooter" Libby, needed to be cleared
because you're the one who was asked to stick his neck in the
meat grinder?

A. Well, because I wasn't responsible, yes.

Q. Right, as to sticking his neck in the meat grinder
because of the incompetence of others. And you've testified,
I think at least the last time and today, that Vice President
Cheney on Air Force Two had wanted you in particular to be the
one to deal with the press on July 12th.

A. That's correct.

Q. So in writing this, did you — do you take it to
mean he's thinking back to the fact that he's put the ball in
your hands to say, I want you to deal with the press
concerning — on July 12th, and now you're the one who's
getting heat, not being protected by the administration's
press spokesperson?

A. I don't, I don't know if he was being that specific
or not. I just — I was, I was being hit for a leak to Novak
that I hadn't — that I wasn't responsible for. I think
that — and the whole issue wouldn't have come about, I think
he's saying, but for the incompetence of others.

Q. But you're also being hit in part both because there
were alleged other leaks, but also people were trying to pin
the identity of the leak —

A. Yes.

Q. — on the person who spoke to other journalists
prior to July 14th. Correct?

A. Yes. I guess that's fair.

Q. And so you're in the sights of the press and in the
Washington Post as being a person who had dealt with Time
magazine because you had talked to Time magazine on July 12th
at the express direction of the Vice President?

A. That's correct, yeah.

Q. And looking back on that, does that refresh your
recollection in any way as to whether or not on July 12th,
flying back on Air Force Two from the Ronald Reagan ceremony
whether you discussed with Vice President Cheney the fact that
Tim Russert or anyone else had told you that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA?

A. No, it doesn't, it doesn't draw that for me at the
moment.

Q. It still remains that it is possible that the Vice
President could have told you to talk to people about Wilson's
wife working at the CIA, but you do not remember that?

A. It's, it's not what I had on my card from that
meeting, and I don't recall him telling me to talk to the —
to anybody about the wife working at the CIA on the airplane
that day.

Q. But you do recall him telling you back in June, from
your notes dated June 12th, and you recall that that stuck in
his mind then in June as a curious fact the way he observed to
you that his wife worked there. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you do know that Vice President Cheney was quite
frustrated during the week of July 6th through July 12th at
how the media was treating this issue, and the fact that he
was being unfairly maligned in the media. Correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you had gotten an e-mail, I believe, from Jay
Carney of Time magazine the day before saying people are
pointing fingers at OVP. Correct?

A. That sounds right, sir. I haven't looked at it
recently, but that sounds right.

Q. And so, on July 12th, Vice President Cheney was
still determined to get the full story out. Correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And the notes show all week he said, anything less
than the complete truth would be a mistake. Correct?

A. Correct, sir.

Q. And during that time the Vice President was also
expressing doubts about the validity of Ambassador Wilson's
conclusions because, number one, he didn't think that — he
thought it unusual that they had used a former ambassador to
take this trip. Correct?

A. You say, "during that week," and it could be during
that week. I just don't recall it as — I don't recall there
was a discussion during that week, but that could be, I recall
them later, and as you pointed out, we have — he had
something like that on the lunch of the 18th. When Vice
President Cheney said, "get the full story out," what I
understood by that was the NIE, the January 24 document, the
CIA's comments in February to the IAEA, those sorts of things.
The substance, the full substance that he wasn't the one who
was told, et cetera.

Q. Well, when Mary Matalin, we saw her notes last time,
talked about "get the full Wilson story out, get Wilson
motivation out." Correct?

A. Mary Matalin had said that. Yes, sir.

Q. She talked about REDACTED. Correct?

A. I don't know if that was her word. That was my note
about the type of things she was saying, I think.

Q. And Vice President Cheney talked about it with you
for the first time that your notes reflect, he brought up that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in the functional Office of
Counterproliferation. Correct?

A. Back in June.

Q. Back in June.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the column July 6th written by Mr. Wilson with
the Vice President's annotations asked "did his wife send him
on a junket." Correct?

A. Whenever he made that note. Yes, sir.

Q. And so you told the FBI in your first interview, or
one of your two interviews, that it's possible that the Vice
President could have told you on Air Force Two that you should
tell the press about Wilson's wife, but you do not recall that
happening. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And does that remain true?

A. It remains true that it was possible, I don't
remember it happening.

Q. Now, when you spoke to Mr. Kessler, and you recall
talking to him about the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA, and you understood in your own mind that it might be a
boondoggle, but not necessarily having a negative sense. Is,
is it at all surprising to you that a reporter hearing that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA might draw the conclusion that
in fact it was a boondoggle?

A. No.

Q. And could it have been your discussion with him of
the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA that could have
prompted Mr. Kessler to ask you whether it was a boondoggle?

A. It could have been, or it could just be that in his
column he had said he had made this trip to Africa, to Niger,
that he had sat around drinking tea with people and talking to
them, that he had his expenses paid and then he came back. I
mean, it could be either one of those which led him to, to do
it. Or if the discussion was after the Novak column, it could
be something that was in his head because he had seen the
Novak column. I don't remember.

Q. And in going back a few months to Pincus, you spoke
to Pincus before the June 12th column, do you know if —
whether or not you told Mr. Pincus the fact that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA? Or the ambassador — former ambassador's
wife worked at the CIA?

A. No, I don't think I did.

Q. Are you aware of a website posting that Mr.
Pincus put on the Washington Post that indicated that he had
been told writing a story about Wilson's wife — or about
Wilson, that he'd been told but didn't publish that Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA?

A. No, I was not aware of that website.

Q. And does that at all refresh your recollection of
whether or not you could have been the person who told Pincus
on June 12th that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. I, I — no, it does not refresh my recollection, and
I do not think that I was the person who — I don't think I
was the person, if he has a website that says that, and I do
not think I talked to him about the wife working at the CIA.

Q. Now you mentioned before that you do not think that
you committed a crime by talking to these reporters and
telling them what other reporters said. Correct?

A. I certainly hope not. Yes, sir.

Q. And it's your understanding of the law that if
you — that you can commit a crime by telling someone
classified information that comes from a classified source.
Correct? Improperly.

A. I suppose you can under proper — yes, under the
proper circumstances you could commit a crime.

Q. And also is it your understanding that if you tell
someone classified information that's been published in a
newspaper already or is learned from a non-classified source
and merely repeated, that you're not committing a crime?

A. It's sort of a complicated question. If, if, if
you're telling somebody something that's from public sources,
I don't think it's classified. I don't think that's wrong, if
you're telling people un — excuse me, it is wrong — if
you're telling — if you're talking to someone about what is
unclassified, I don't think there's anything wrong with that
generally speaking. There may be some odd set of facts, but
generally it would be okay. My understanding is that if
something has been cleared for use in the press and has been
used in the press, that it's been in effect unclassified and
is okay to refer to, my understanding is that, technically, if
something has appeared in the press through a leak but has not
been unclassified, you're not supposed to talk about it. I
don't know whether it's a crime or not, but I think you're not
supposed to talk about it.

Q. So that if a — you knew a fact that was classified
in your current position that you learn today from a
classified document or a classified briefing, and tomorrow
without you playing any role in it whatsoever it ran on the
front page of a newspaper, those facts are reported by a
columnist that, you know, here is what the government plans to
do regarding a certain crisis in the world, and that's a
classified fact that appears in the newspaper, do you
understand that you're entitled by law to direct other
columnists to that article in the newspaper, not saying,
"here's what I know is a classified fact," or not saying,
"here's what I got from a classified briefing," but you might
want to pick up the New York Times and read the story on page
one?

A. I'm sort of uncomfortable because I don't know — I
mean, there are a lot of variations of these things and I
haven't looked at the law for it, so I'm not totally —

Q. I'm, I'm asking for your state of mind. I'm not
asking you to explain the law to the Grand Jury. I'm glad you
mentioned that so I can tell them. I'm not asking Mr. Libby
as an attorney to tell you what the law is. I'm trying to
understand in your mindset what you think the law is, right or
wrong.

A. My understanding is, if something is on the front
page of the paper because in effect the President has directed
that it be put out, that those things are commonly done and
people then talk about them. So that if he says, I'm going to
do a certain initiative or something and somebody then puts
that out publicly, that that's then something that's okay to
talk about.

Q. Even if it's classified?

A. Well, I think at that point it wouldn't be
classified. But you know, that's why I — did it get into the
paper — often things get into the paper that the President
has told Dr. Rice go talk about. Or that Dr. Rice has cleared
or somebody has cleared. I don't mean to keep using her.
Secretary Powell has cleared through the process that it's
okay to talk about. It's previously in a classified document
but they've been told to go talk about it and so they go talk
about it, and those things would be okay to talk about because
they were cleared through public discussion. Lots of things
start as classified and then become unclassified and come out
in the paper. But if someone has purloined a document —
stolen a document or something and then that document appears,
or a fact appears that there are times when that is not okay
to talk about. Safest thing is just not to talk about it.

Q. And when you were interviewed by the FBI, the first
interview in this case, did you understand that if you had
told reporters that Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA, based
upon knowledge you had learned from the government or from
conversations with Vice President Cheney, that you could have
committed a crime?

A. My understanding, when I heard it from Vice
President Cheney, was that it wasn't classified information.
I didn't understand it to be classified information. So my
understanding would be, if I didn't think it was classified
information, if it wasn't presented to me as classified
information, if I wasn't intending to release classified
information, that it wouldn't be a crime. But I'm not — this
is not my area of the law.

Q. Is it fair to say though that as a National Security
Advisor and Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Advisor
to the President on national security matters, that if the
Vice President learned something from the CIA during a brief
or from reviewing CIA material, that, that one can assume that
much of that material is classified?

A. He's usually very clear, or I see it with him. I
usually have an under — understanding of what is classified
or not classified. The thing that he presented to me about
the wife, if that's what you're referring to, in, in — on or
about June 12 I did not understand to be classified.

Q. Did you have any sense that if you revealed the
person's identity out at the CIA you may be compromising the
identity of a covert person?

A. Any person? No, sir. I mean, my, my understanding
is that most the people at the CIA are not covert and are —
their employment there is open and above board.

Q. Your understanding is that most of the people at the
CIA their employment is above board? They go around telling
people I work at the CIA?

A. Yeah.

Q. And you didn't consider that there might be a risk
that a person working at the CIA might be overt to other CIA
employees and even sometimes to the government, but may be
operating undercover, I mean, cover, meaning (Redacted)
(Redacted) or some other cover or might otherwise be a covert
person?

A. In this instance? In general, in this instance?

Q. The general first and then this instance.

A. In general there are a lot of people I know who work
at the CIA who, you know, I play softball with or football
with and they tell everybody in the game they work at the CIA.
I mean, a lot of people work at the CIA and it's not a secret
that they work at the CIA. If it is a secret that they work
at the CIA, they don't go tell everybody in the softball game
that they work at the CIA.
The — in this instance I had no sense when I
learned it and then forgot it that it was classified. And
when Tim Russert told it to me I had no sense that what he was
telling me was something classified. And when I heard from
Karl Rove that Bob Novak had told him, I had no sense that it
was something classified. And when I talked to the reporters
about it, I explicitly said, you know, I don't know if this is
true, I don't know the man, I don't know if he has a wife, but
reporters are telling us that. So I didn't think I was saying
anything that was classified.

Q. And so when Tim Russert had this conversation with
you, you didn't remember that the Vice President had told you
in June that Wilson's wife works at the CIA. But now, having
remembered what you forgot, you remember that you understood
that when you learned it in June not to be classified?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you didn't have a concern that you could go
around and many people can tell you at a softball game that
they worked at the CIA, but you learned it in the White House
from the Vice President. Correct? That Wilson's wife worked
at the CIA.

A. It was not presented to me as in any way, going back
to the June 12 statement, it was not presented to me in any
way that it was a classified fact, and I didn't take it that
way. As I recall, it wasn't presented to me as classified and
my note doesn't reflect it in any way as having been my
understanding at the time to be classified. So I just did not
think it was classified.

Q. But many things you write in your notes are
classified. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you keep your notes together as if they're
classified, and they have both classified information and
unclassified in them. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't section mark your, your personal notes
saying this is top secret, this is secret, this is
unclassified?

A. That's correct.

Q. You might talk about your kids going on a trip to
the U.S.S. Reagan on Saturday which is unclassified, and
follow that with a position regarding an unnamed foreign
leader who you'll put the name in, and say, here's what we're
doing about this foreign affairs issue that may be highly
classified. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So your notes don't indicate one way or the other
whether or not Wilson's wife's employment at the CIA is
classified. Correct?

A. It's correct, although when I'm dealing with
something which involves covert stuff, we usually write TS
(redact) on the document.
MR. FITZGERALD. We'll strike that. We'll just put
TS and a word.
WITNESS. We usually write TS and a code word next
to it which is a — sorry.
MR. FITZGERALD. We'll redact that.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. So you put TS and a code word?

A. Yes, usually when there's something that is of that
caliber.

Q. And recognizing that beyond code word, SCI and
sensitive compartmented information, there's top secret and
then there's secret and then there's confidential, all of
which are classified. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So top secret information wouldn't have a code word
marking necessarily.

A. Correct.

Q. And secret wouldn't have a code word. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And confidential wouldn't have a code marking but
all of those three categories of non-code word materials are
still classified. Correct?

A. Still classified and could have a code word, but
don't necessarily.

Q. And so your understanding, when you learn
information, wasn't that it was code word, but did you have an
affirmative understanding that it was not classified in any
sense at the confidential, secret or top secret that Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA?

A. I had no sense at all that it was classified. Is
that what you asked? I'm sorry.

Q. Yes.

A. I'm sorry.

Q. And you remember not having a sense it was
classified sitting here today even though when you learned the
information from Mr. Russert you didn't remember learning it
in June?

A. Correct. I didn't — it wasn't until I saw the note
that it refreshed me on — that I learned it in June. If, if
I had not seen that note, I would have been pretty confident I
never learned it.

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that
you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a
crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the
information from, affect your account for the FBI when you
told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked
at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice
President?

A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told
the reporters.

Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today
that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?

A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was
saying and because it was — that's what — that's how I did
it.

Q. And just so we're clear, so as you sit here today,
it remains your testimony that you recall no conversation with
Marc Grossman in which Marc Grossman told you that Wilson
worked — wife worked at the CIA. Correct?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. And as you sit here today, it's your testimony that
all during the week of July 6th to July 14th you never
recalled your conversation back on or about June 12th with
Vice President Cheney who had told you that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA in counterproliferation. Correct?

A. Right. To be exact, I believe my testimony is I
don't recall recalling that, and I recall being surprised by
what Tim Russert said. And from that I believe that I did not
recall it at all during that week. I know I didn't — I
recall being surprised when I learned it from Tim Russert, and
therefore I don't think I remembered it in the day or two
beforehand.

Q. And you have no recollection of discussing either in
June or July of 2003, with Cathie Martin, that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA?

A. Correct, I don't, I don't recall having that
discussion.

Q. And you specifically have no recollection of telling
Ari Fleischer on July 7th at your lunch before he left the
White House that you had a fact, you had a fact that was hush-
hush or
Q.t. which was that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Correct?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. And it's your recollection that when Mr. Russert
told you on or about July 10th that Wilson's wife worked at
the CIA, that struck you as a new fact, you had no
recollection of any prior conversations with other people
concerning Wilson's wife working at the CIA. Correct?

A. That's how I recall it, sir.

Q. And in your conversations that you had with Mr.
Cooper, Mr. Kessler, Ms. Miller, you recall telling each one
of those when you did talk about Wilson's wife that you had
learned that from another reporter or reporters. Correct?

A. With Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, yes. With Mr.
Kessler, I'm still not sure that we discussed the wife on the
Saturday. If we did, I'm sure that I said, "reporters are
telling us that." It could be that I discussed that with him
the following week, I just don't know. If that's the case, I
don't know that he may have just brought it up because it was
in the Novak article. I just don't recall it as clearly.

Q. And it remains your testimony that with regard to
Andrea Mitchell, you don't recall whether or not you discussed
Wilson's wife working at the CIA with her, but you have a
recollection of being in a dilemma that if she were to ask you
how you knew, that you were afraid that you would have to tell
her that Russert had told you. You didn't want her to learn
from you what Russert may not have told her?

A. That's, that's the bit about that conversation that
sticks out in my mind, sir.

Q. And now, did you at all feel uncomfortable in the
fall of 2003, having had these conversations when you did get
cleared by Mr. McClellan and the word came out that there's no
White House involvement in these leaks whatsoever, did you
feel uncomfortable that in any way you had misled Mr.
McClellan, or the President, or anyone else in the
administration to believe that there was no White House
involvement in this, in this factual scenario when in fact you
had been talking to reporters?

A. Certainly not at all uncomfortable with what I
wanted Mr. McClellan to say which was I was not the source for
Mr. Novak. I'm not uncomfortable about what Mr. McClellan said
because I had gone to the Vice President and told him, "I
would be happy to tell you everything I know if you want me
to." And so I think I did what I was supposed to do. And
it's my understanding that I wasn't supposed to be going
around talking to lots of people about what I recall and
exchanging memories on it. So I'm comfortable with that.

Q. And just so we're clear, I've been asking you
questions about prior — on your conversations with people
prior to the FBI beginning interviews. I'm not at all asking
questions about what people should be doing henceforth. So no
one is asking you to go out and have conversations with people
from this point forward.

A. Okay.

Q. And given that you understood that the better
practice was not to have conversations with people, why did
you pick up the phone to call Tim Russert rather than have
your lawyer call him?

A. Tim Russert doesn't know my lawyer, and I picked up
the phone and only said, I'd like you to — I'm wondering if
you would be willing to talk to my lawyer, and so I didn't
think there was anything wrong with that because I didn't go
into details about anything. And he said, "I better talk to
my lawyer." And so we then had — I think his lawyer called
mine, or mine called his, and that was that.

Q. Did you ever hear back from Tim Russert whether he
would — did he ever tell you he had talked to your lawyer?

A. Never heard back from him.

Q. Sir, sir?

A. I never heard back from Tim Russert.

Q. Have you reached out to any other reporters, asked
them whether they would be willing to speak to you, or your
counsel?

A. I have not reached out, but I had a conversation
with Evan Thomas at one point about a different subject, and
he said, "What's the story about this Wilson stuff?" And I
said, "I'm not allowed to talk about that. But you know, if
you want, I can — you can talk to my lawyer, but I can't —
I'm not allowed to talk to you about this stuff." And he
said, "Okay."

Q. Any other conversations with third parties about the
facts of the case other than those two reporters realizing how
limited those conversations are?

A. Yeah. I don't think I discussed the facts of the
case —

Q. Right.

A. — with those two. No, I don't think I've had any
discussions with any reporters about it.
MR. FITZGERALD. Okay, be one moment.
(Long pause while Mr. Fitzgerald and co-counsel
confer.)
MR. FITZGERALD. If we could ask you to step out
for just a minute and we'll see if the Grand Jurors have any
questions.
WITNESS. Okay. Do you want me to stand out here
or go all the way —
MR. FITZGERALD. Why don't we ask Katie? She knows
everything. Okay.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 3:15 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the witness was recalled at 3:20 p.m.)
GRAND JUROR. I just want to remind you that you
are still under oath. Thank you.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. Okay, a few sets of questions. First, your lunch
with Ari Fleischer. How often had you had lunch with Ari
Fleischer in the past?

A. Very, very seldom. It might be the only time. It
might have been two of them.

Q. So it was either your only lunch or one of two?

A. It was very modest. You usually can't get lunch
with him because he's — he does his gag — his briefing at 1
o'clock and so he doesn't do lunch a lot.

Q. And have you talked to Ari Fleischer since he left
government?

A. No, sir. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. It's a long day.

A. Yes, I saw him at a basketball game, and I think I
saw him around the White House — more than once, I think. I
think I've seen him at some receptions at the White House.
It's tricky about this since he left government part — he's
gotten married and I've run into him with his wife, I think.
Anyway, I definitely saw him at a basketball game.

Q. Have you talked to him at all about this matter
since he's left government?

A. Not that I know of. Was that a strange answer?

Q. Yes.

A. No. Sorry. I, I don't think so. At the basketball
game he asked me how things were doing, things were going
okay, that sort of thing. I don't think we've talked in any
detail about this matter.

Q. Secondly, when it comes to — when it came to your
conversation with Mr. Russert, the question is, why were you
so surprised when he told you that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA?

A. Well, I was, I was surprised that he knew it, and I
thought I didn't. I mean, I didn't as I sat there know it.
I'm also — Tim Russert is — I don't know, he's one of the —
in my view anyway, he's one of the best of the newsmen, one of
the most substantive of the news people, and it struck me
that, that not only did he know it and I didn't know it, or at
least as I sat there I didn't know it, but also that he
thought it was important.

Q. And you mentioned that you reached out to him in the
last month, like either in February or March. And the
question was whether you'd reached out to Mr. Russert before
or after your first Grand Jury appearance?

A. I don't recall. I think before but I'm not sure.

Q. Putting aside any advice of counsel events, was
there anything that triggered your reaching out to Mr.
Russert?

A. No.

Q. Next question is, what is your protocol when you're
talking to White House, particularly the Vice President, as in
an oral conversation about whether or not one is to assume
that what you are told is classified or not? How do you go
through the day talking about national security matters and
other matters with the Vice President and sort out what's
classified and what's not?

A. A lot of stuff is cleared that is clearly classified
because we're in a briefing together and we're talking about
things that are from the briefing. Some things are clear that
they're not classified because they're coming out in a
newspaper or something that's been on television news or
something like that. And then there are some things which,
you know, he or I will specifically say are classified. And
sometimes he'll say, "This is for you only, you're not to talk
to anybody else about this." Sometimes that's a classified
fact, sometimes it's not a classified fact that I'm not to
talk about. But — so usually we — usually it's clear
between us from the context, but occasionally he'll actually
specify.

Q. And does the Vice President ever ask you not to
write certain things down?

A. Maybe once or twice in a long period of time he may
have said not to write something down. It's not very common.

Q. And without telling us the subject matter, what
would occasion him to tell you not to write it down?

A. Something which is an operational — maybe something
about a war plan, something like that.

Q. You know that records are kept by the Presidential
Records Act. Is there ever communication by the Vice
President that he doesn't want you to write something down,
not because it's going to compromise something operational
concerning the national defense, but doesn't want a record
kept that certain things are discussed?

A. No, I don't think he's ever told me that.

Q. Do you ever recall anything being told by the Vice
President not to write anything down concerning uranium,
Niger, the controversy about the sixteen words, and the
discussion of Wilson's trip —

A. No —

Q. — or the response thereto?

A. — no, sir.

Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are —
concern this fact. If you did not understand the information
about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't
understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it
that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other
reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as
something you knew?

A. I want — I didn't want to — I didn't know if it
was true and I didn't want people — I didn't want the
reporters to think it was true because I said it. I — all I
had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I
wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it
might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true
sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be
clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I
didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that.
Also, it was important to me to let them know that because
what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We
didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff
came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know
he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr.
Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be
very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know
about him. And the only thing I had on it, I thought at the
time, was what reporters are telling us.

Q. And the next question was, what did the Vice
President tell you about his conversation with the President
when the President gave you the green light to share some of
the NIE information with the press which turned out to be
Judith Miller?

A. He told me to go ahead and talk to — that we should
go ahead and, and talk to the press about the NIE. I don't
remember whether he said Judith Miller at that point or, or we
should go ahead and talk about it. And, you know, I said, the
President cleared it? And he said, "yes," or something. I
didn't use those words necessarily, but that was — I made
sure that, that he had talked to the President, the President
said that we should talk about it.

Q. Do you know if he met with the President in person
or spoke to him by telephone?

A. I don't know.

Q. And do you know if the Vice President was in town,
in Washington, when he talked to the President about it or was
out of town?

A. I believe he was in town when he talked to, talked
about it.

Q. And do you know whether the President was in town
when he talked to the President about it?

A. I think that he talked to the President — I believe
they were both in town when they talked about it, but I, I
don't know, but that was my impression.

Q. Any other detail that the Vice President imparted to
you about his conversation that he had with the President?

A. No, sir.
MR. FITZGERALD. And — give me a moment while I
read my writing. I'll just ask someone else.
WITNESS. They have to read your writing?
(Whereupon, Mr. Fitzgerald and co-counsel confer.)
MR. FITZGERALD. Oh, yes, okay.
BY MR. FITZGERALD:

Q. When the Vice President asked you the question,
"have they done this type of thing before," question to that
effect, Vice — did the Vice President ever ask you has the
Agency ever done this sort of thing before where an ambassador
was sent out?

A. I think he may have at some point.

Q. And what did you do in response to that question, if
anything?

A. I don't know if I did anything particularly about
it. I think he may have taken it up with, with Tenet rather
than asking me. He knows that I'm not an Agency person. The
only person on our staff who knows anything about the Agency
is — or who has worked there, I should say, is our General
Counsel, David Addington. So whether he took it up with him
or not, I don't know. I may have asked John McLaughlin about
it but I don't, I don't recall.

Q. And do you recall whether or not Vice President
Cheney ever told you that he in fact did talk to Tenet or
anyone else at the Agency about this?

A. I think he had talked to someone at the Agency about
this subject in general. I don't know specifically about —
the specific here was, was what?

Q. Whether they send ambassadors overseas —

A. Yeah, I don't know about —

Q. — or don't they?

A. — that particular part of it.

Q. What did he talk to the official that you do know he
talked about?

A. About, you know, how this came about. I have a
sense that he had talked to Tenet or somebody about, about
that.

Q. And what time frame was that?

A. Summer, June, July, something like that. He was
interested in this subject and, you know, he doesn't run — he
doesn't do everything through me. He does a lot of stuff
himself. He meets with Director Tenet daily or McLaughlin
daily, and I have a sense that he had talked to them about it
along the way.

Q. And what gave you that sense?

A. Some conversation but I don't recall, I don't recall
it. I mean, I don't recall any details of it. I think there
was some conversation where I had the sense that he had, he
had talked about this directly with them.

Q. Did you ever talk to a person by the name of David
Shedd about Wilson, or his wife, or the trip?

A. David Shedd is the NSC officer for intelligence, I
think. I'm not sure of his exact title. But he's from the
Agency, as I understand it. I've talked to David Shedd about
a lot of things, mostly involving Iraq and intelligence. I
don't recall talking to David Shedd specifically about the
Wilson matter. I might have but I don't recall.

Q. And to your knowledge has, has the Vice President
ever talked to David Shedd about Wilson, the Wilson matter or
the trip to Niger about uranium?

A. I don't know. I don't think he would often talk to
David Shedd, but maybe on the margins of something or
something.
MR. FITZGERALD. Okay. If you could step out a
moment, we'll just confirm that there are no more questions.
Appreciate it.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 3:33 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the witness was recalled at 3:34 p.m.)
MR. FITZGERALD. We are complete. We'll — for the
record I'd ask the foreperson just to keep you under subpoena
in case something else develops that we could bring you back.
We don't have to go out and serve you again, but in the
unlikely event that should happen, we will contact Mr. Tate
and let you know. Thank you for the time and we, we are
complete.
WITNESS. Thank you. Thank you all.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused at 3:34 p.m.)

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
transcript, to the best of my skill and ability, from my
stenographic notes/electronic recording.

November 15, 2006
Date Deborah H. Powers, Court Reporter
More from this author:
Privacy Policy (11342 Hits)
Privacy Policy for V.O.F. Expathos (Atlantic Free Press) V.O.F. EXPATHOS (ATLANTIC FREE PRESS) PRIVACY POLICY Welcome to V.O.F....
Terms of Use (11895 Hits)
V.O.F. Expathos Web Site Agreement The materials that appear on this website are available free of charge. They are published...
About (12496 Hits)
Atlantic Free Press was founded in September 2006 by Publisher Richard Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands and Editor - Journalist Chris...
Advertise (37192 Hits)
To advertise please contact Editor @ atlanticfreepress dot Com ...or use the googleads services here
Help (11880 Hits)
Contact us by email.
Related Articles:
Let's March in January! An Impeachment Call to Action (11048 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, barring some incredible act of criminal cynicism such as the...
Canada's Grand Illusion (7966 Hits)
by Paul William Roberts "... and therefore the Egyptian law pressed this affair well, 'Let all that break their word and oaths die...
"Our War Against Canada": Alex Cox and the Long March of American Militarism (8598 Hits)
by Chris Floyd This piece was written for Truthout.org. I. Echoes From the Past and Future The images look familiar, even comforting...
MASSIVE ANTI-WAR MARCH PLANNED FOR JAN. 27 IN D.C. - PROTESTERS WILL URGE CONGRESS TO STAND UP TO BUSH (5932 Hits)
By David Swanson Peace March Expected to be Among Largest Since War Began NEW YORK, NY -- Americans angered by Bush's plans to escalate the...
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS JOIN ANTIWAR MARCH AND LOBBY DAY IN D.C. (8172 Hits)
Washington DC - Progressive Democrats of America, the grassroots ally of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is mobilizing its membership into...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top