Libby's Grand Jury Testimony Transcript

[Guest LAW]

This part of the testimony from Friday, March 5, 2004 is quite interesting. It defines the White House Administration ground rules for dealing with the press.

 

Q = MR. FITZGERALD

A = MR. LIBBY

 

Q. And I will also tell you, as you were advised prior to coming in, in the presence of your attorney, that based I upon your conduct in this investigation and in particular I contact with reporters, you, among others, are a subject of the investigation. And that does not mean that anyone has I decided to charge you with any crimes, but just is to advise you of the serious nature of the proceeding. Do you understand that?

A. I do.

Q. And do you have any questions about the nature of the proceeding?

A. No, sir.

Q. And are you prepared to proceed?

A. I am. I

Q. Okay. Why don't you tell the Grand Jury what your job titles are and then give us a brief explanation of what your duties are?

A. I have three job titles at the moment. One is I Assistant to the President; one is Chief of Staff to the Vice- 1

President; and the last is National Security Advisor to the

Vice President.

And as National Security Advisor to the VicePresident it's my job to advise him on issues of national

security, to meet with and represent him in inter-agency meetings or occasionally meetings with outside parties to describe his views or to learn from them, to gather information to repeat back to him. It's part of my job to listen to what other people in the White House are saying, to, to meet with foreign leaders on occasion and to report those things back to him. It's my job to work with the White House staff, to be -- to develop policy and to implement policy, anc to take that information and go back and explain that to the

Vice President. Occasionally it's part of my job on his behalf to talk with the press and to relay his positions to the press if he so wishes or to other issues what the WhiteHouse is doing.

 

Q. Okay. And so in effect, you're an assistant both tc the President himself directly and to the Vice President

himself?

 

A. That is correct, sir.

 

Q. And can you tell the Grand Jury what security clearance level you have?

 

A. I have a TS, Top Secret, and a secure compartmentalized intelligence clearance, and clearances in numbers of boxes along the way, numbers of compartmented ' intelligence.

 

Q. Okay. And can you tell us in the course of your daily work how much contact you have with the intelligence community and how much access you have to classified Information?

 

A. Oh, I have a lot of access to classified documents. 11 meet every morning -- my day usually starts at 7 o'clock in the morning, or sometimes a little earlier, and I'll get an intelligence briefing. I'll sit down with someone from the Agency, usually with the Vice President, and we have a book of intelligence that they provide with this, and he is there to answer questions from us and to take questions that we ask back to the Agency and get us further information. That meeting usually goes 30, 45 minutes. I also receive the product from the Agency that morning which can be -- I usually get a little extra, so it can be anywhere from 20 to 150 pages that I get every morning. Usually it's somewhere in the middle, 30, 40 pages. Then during the day I attend meetings and frequently the Deputy or one of the top officials from the Intelligence Agency will be at that meeting and will discuss policy issues, Liberia, Haiti, Iraq, those sorts of things. I also will occasionally be part of a principals meeting where the Director of Central Intelligence is present. And during the day I will receive other written products from the Agency and go through those.

 

Q. And just so we're crystal clear, I think it's obvious, but when you refer to the Agency, you're referring to

the CIA?

 

A. I'm sorry. Central Intelligence Agency.

 

Q. And that's fine. You can keep referring to the Agency. I just want to make that, that clear. And do you, yourself, at times read the raw intelligence reports to see what's behind some of the summaries that you're given?

 

A. Yes. I

 

Q. And does the Vice President do that as well?

 

A. Yes. Sometimes they're presented to us by the briefer and sometimes I will show him one that the briefer has shown me.

 

Q. And so is it, is it a practice with the people who are dealing with you on a regular basis to bring with them not just finished product but also to give you sometimes the raw documents behind that because of your interest in seeing them?

 

A. Occasionally. It's not all that common, but occasionally.

 

Q. With what frequency do you have contact with the I press in your, in your job?

 

A. It, it goes in spurts. Usually there may be periods when I don't see them. You know, when a reporter is doing a profile of the Vice President, for example, they will call oul office. They, they call around to talk to kids he went to high school with, now they're no longer kids. They'll talk to family members, they want to talk to people he works with, they'll talk to other Cabinet officials. And one of the people they often like to talk to is me because I work with him every day. And they'll say, you know, sit down and say, what's it like? Usually these contacts will come through our press person. We have a -- I have an assistant who is charged

with being in charge of relations with the press, and so we try and funnel most of those types of requests.

 

In addition, 1/11 get calls from reporters about things that they're hearing. You know, we hear the

President's going to make a trip or something. And they'll call me and usually 1/11 defer that to somebody else. And then sometimes I am charged to go talk to the press about an issue along the way.

 

Q. And three questions. You mentioned there is someone on your staff who is charged with dealing with the press. And what is that person's name?

 

A. Currently it's a person named Kevin Kellums. Before Kevin Kellums it was someone named Cathie Martin, Catherine Martin, I guess. And before that, it was Mary Matalin.

 

Q. And at what point did Mary Matalin leave and did Catherine Martin take over, approximately?

 

A. Well, Cathie worked as a Deputy to Mary before Mary left. I think Mary took us through the mid-term elections, so that would be November of 2002, and I think Mary left right about -- sometime in that period. Maybe somewhere between then and the New Year, I think, and Catherine just sort of took over.

 

Q. And you mentioned that sometimes you're charged with dealing with the press directly rather than through your press people. And who would tell you to do that?

 

A. Well, Cathie would recommend it usually and then I would talk to them. Occasionally somebody from the press that I know and they'd call, but usually I would have to talk to Cathie.

 

Q. And in your understanding, did you need to check with the Vice President in order to talk to the press and get authorization to talk?

 

A. I don't need to. Sometimes I do.

 

Q. And have there been occasions when the Vice President has told you that you are to speak to the press

rather than other people?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And when you deal with the press, what is your understanding of the ground rules of what they can do with the information you share with them?

 

A. Well, there are different ground rules. There's on-the-record, which means they can quote me by name in the I piece. So they can say, Lewis Libby said such-and-such.

 

And then there are other gradations after that. One of them is background in which I think they -- this varies by reporter actually, but it usually means, I think, that they can say -- sometimes they call me a senior administration official, because they want to make their piece look important -- so they'll say senior administration official said such-and-such.

 

There's something called deep background, which usually I think, means they just get to say it as if somebody said it but they don't really tag it. Some people use that to mean a government official, and sometimes these are actually negotiated, you know. The press person will sit down and say here's what you can say about it.

 

And then there's something called off-the-record. When you talk off-the-record it is supposed to not ever be

lrepeated by the reporter to anybody, including their editors. They're supposed to -- it's something you tell them so they can get it in their head and it informs them as to what they can say, what they can ask about, but they're not supposed to go and repeat it to anybody, and they're not -- certainly not supposed to write about it.

 

Q. Okay.

 

A. They're not supposed to even call someone and say, you know, Libby told me in an off-the-record comment. They're not supposed to do that. Theyf re just supposed to say, you know, I'm wondering about this, what about this, without citing it to anyone. Sorry.

 

Q. No. And let me see if I can illustrate that with an example. You mentioned that people may call you to ask if the President's going to be taking a trip. And if the President were in fact taking a trip next week, and you spoke to a reporter on-the-record, is it fair to say that the reporter could say Lewis Libby told, you know, this reporter, quote, the President will be taking a trip to England next week? Is that your understanding of on-the-record?

 

A. That is on-the-record, although I might not confirm it for him, but I might say that's an NSC issue because it's the President traveling. But if I did say to him, the President is traveling, they could then say, Lewis Libby said.

 

Q. And that would be if you had an on-the-record

conversation?

 

A. Correct, sir.

 

Q. If you had a background conversation that said -- and it may be that this is a topic that you wouldn't discuss, traveling, just to use as a hypothetical, you said on background the President is traveling to England next week, they could write in the story, a senior administration official said the President is traveling next week. Is that your understanding of --

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. -- on background?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And your understanding of deep background is that they could report in the story that, you know, the reporters have learned that the President is traveling to England next week, but not cite a senior administration official and certainly not quote you?

 

A. Yes,sir.

 

Q. And if it was deep background, the reporter could now know that the President was traveling to England next week, but they would not write that in the story, they could not tell their editors, but to the extent that they informed how they thought about the issues they were writing about, that information would be given to them on deep background. Is that your understanding?

 

A. I thought you asked about deep background just before that.

 

A. Yes,sir.

 

Q. And if it was deep background, the reporter could now know that the President was traveling to England next week, but they would not write that in the story, they could not tell their editors, but to the extent that they informed how they thought about the issues they were writing about, that information would be given to them on deep background. Is that your understanding?

 

A. I thought you asked about deep background just before that.

 

government agencies and say, I understand that the President's taking a trip. They can just call -- they might call up and say, you know, what's the President doing next week? But they're not supposed to refer to it to anybody.

[Guest LAW]

Q. Okay. And do you ever have the reporters call you back directly to verify a quote for something you gave them on-the-record or on background?

 

A. It probably has happened over the course of three years. It's not the normal, but it probably has happened.

 

Q. And in this case, one of the matters being focused on in this investigation is a column written by Robert Novak in July 14, 2003. I ,take it you're familiar with that column as we sit here today?

 

A. Yes, sir, I am.

 

Q. And there's some information contained' in that article concerning the employment -- the alleged employment of former Ambassador Wilson's wife at the CIA. Do you know that fact that it's contained in the article?

 

A. Yes, sir, I know it's contained in the article.

 

Q. And were you a source for Mr. Novak about -- in that article about the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife at the CIA?

 

A: No, sir.

 

Q. Were you a source for any information for Mr. Novak in that article?

 

A. No, sir.

 

Q. Do you know if you spoke to Mr. Novak at or about the time the article was prepared?

 

A. I have, I have a recollection that I did speak to Mr. Novak once in that general time frame, but my notes

indicate, notes that you have, indicate to me that in fact that was a week and a half or so after the article appeared.

Q. Do you have any recollection of speaking to him before the article appeared?

 

A. Maybe a year and a half before the article appeared, but not any time near the article.

 

*** Note Lines 16 - 18 are blacked out

 

Q. And to the extent that the Grand Jury is familiar with the, quote, sixteen words, closed quote, that have caused controversy since then, were you involved in either the drafting or vetting of those sixteen words?

 

A. No, sir, I don't think I was. It may have been in a draft that I saw, but I don't think so.

 

Q. And there's a document known as the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, that concerned in part efforts by lraq to obtain uranium. Did you review the NIE at some point in 2002 or 2003 concerning Iraq and efforts to get uranium?

 

A: Yes, sir

 

Q. And do you recall whether or not there were any doubts expressed in the, in the NIE about the allegation that Iraq had tried to get uranium from Niger?

 

A. The NIE has a fairly clear declarative sentence in the section on uranium and Iraq, and it says something like, Iran (sic) began vigorously trying to procure uranium, something like pretty close to that. And that is unqualified in the section on uranium. There are some sections towards the back, and I'm sorry I haven't reviewed the document, and I'd be happy to look at it if you like, there are some sections towards the back in which State Department expresses some doubts about uranium. I think it had to do with whether or not someone could actually procure, actually get the uranium as opposed to trying to get uranium, if you follow what I mean. And I think they had some doubts -- well, that were unrelated about the rockets or the about the centrifuge tubes, whatever they proved to be. So that's my recollection. I could look at the document and tell you. But I recall that there was something in the back of the document, not in the section itself but way in the back.

 

Q. And for the record, the document is not in front of you so we're just asking you your memory.

One clarification. In describing the NIE report you referenced Iran making efforts to get uranium. Did you mean to say Iraq?

 

A. Excuse me.

Q. Okay. Your testimony is -- what your recollection is concerns Iraq, not Iran?

 

A. My, my apologies.

 

**** Three pages are blacked out after that statement

[Guest LAW]

Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention then forward to May, 2003, and in particular to an article that appeared in the New York Times on May 6, 2003 written by an author named Kristof, K-r-i-s-t-o-f. Do you recall that article being published in or about that time?

 

A. I do sir.

 

Q. And do you recall how you first learned of it?

 

A. Someone came in and told me about it or I saw it flipping through the paper. I, I don't really recall.

 

Q. And do you recall reading it at or about the time it was published?

 

A. Yes.

 

MR. FITZGERALD. And why don't we put a copy of that article in front of you in case you need to refer to it?

 

And for the' record, that is Grand Jury Exhibit 3.

 

Q. And is it fair to say that in that article, the article is critical of the administration in terms'of stating that, for example, one quote, "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," close quote?

 

A. That sounds ,critical. I haven't seen anything -- one insider said?

 

Q. Yes.

 

A. Yes, so he is quoting somebody else, yes, sir. There is a not very nice statement in there.

 

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that according to this article, the White House and State Department kept citing documents which proved to be a forgery?

 

A. Can you -- you're asking me what's in the --

 

Q. Yeah, well, let me ask you. Do you remember whether or not -- without reading it for a moment, whether this was an article that was very critical of the administration?

 

A. The article -- the bulk of what they were saying in the article is critical. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And do you recall they're criticizing, according to the article, and I'm not saying this is true or false, but the premise of the article was that the White House and the State Department had actual knowledge that documents that had been forged and kept citing them to the public, and that this was disingenuous on the part of the administration?

 

A. I, I don't actually recall whether this article said, said that, but I don't dispute it. I just don't recall it. I haven't read it recently.

 

Q. Do you recall any reaction that you had to the article when you read it at the time?

 

A. Yes. I recall -- can I just glance at it for one second?

 

Q. Oh, yes. You can read -- take a moment and read the whole article.

 

A. I mean, my major reaction to this article had to do with this passage about being told that a person involved in the Niger caper more than a year ago -- told the -- the person involved in the caper, the caper more than a year ago said that the Vice President's Office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal. That, that, either at the time, or subsequently caught my eye.

 

Q. And the article contends, for example, at a certain point, quote, "There are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world." Do you see that in the third paragraph?

 

A. There are indications that the U.S. -- yes, I see it. And that's not good stuff.

 

Q. And then the sixth paragraph, is that a reference to what you were recalling, I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the Vice President's Office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February, 2002, according to someone present at the meetings that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the

information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged." Is that, is that what stuck in your mind about an allegation that the Office of Vice President had --

 

A. Right, because that had to do basically with us. I do recall that.

 

Q . And who did you discuss this article with once you read it and saw that there were allegations that attacked the credibility of the President, the Vice President, State Department and basically the administration?

 

A. I discussed it with my Deputy, probably discussed it with the Vice President. I don't specifically recall

discussing this back then. The article was a little bit of a sleeper from my point of view in the sense that it came out, I noted it, I didn't pay much attention to it for a while, and then it sort of built momentum as it went along. So the day or two that it came out, I don't recall talking about it all that much except I talked to my Deputy about it.

 

Q. And as you sit here today, you don't recall whether or not you talked to the Vice President within a couple of days after the article came out?

 

A. I, I don't recall. It's -- I don't recall.

 

Q. And did the Kristof article, as you say, gain momentum over time?

 

A. Yes.

Q. ' Okay. And can you tell us what happened as it gained momentum over time in terms of who you spoke to?

 

A. weil, the, the content of it sort of kept coming up. It didn't go away readily. At some point in June Walter Pincus was thinking -- was doing -- was calling our office, calling probably Cathie Martin at that point, and wanted some -- to ask questions about the article. Well, about the substance of it. And so Cathie talked to me about it at that point, and at some point around then, talked to the Vice President about how we would respond to this. I also talked to -- at some point in this time frame I talked to our briefer, our Central Intelligence Agency briefer, to ask him if in fact we -- he had any record of us asking about this, and I talked to the Vice President about that fact somewhere in there too.

 

Q. And what's the name of your briefer?

 

A. Craig Schmall, at that point.

 

Q. And do you know how to spell the last name?

 

A. I think it's S-c-h-m-a-l-l.

 

Q . And do you know if during this time between the Kristof article in early May, and the Pincus article, which

will eventually come out on June 12th, if you spoke to Marc Grossman from the State Department about the events described in the Kristof article?

 

A. I don't, I don't recall it. Secretary Grossman attends interagency meetings that I'm at, so I see him in that

period, throughout that period probably once a week or more, but I don't recall a discussion with him about it.

[Guest LAW]

Q. Do you recall if you ever asked Secretary Grossman whether or not the State Department had sent the former ambassador in response to a request from the Vice President?

 

A. The State Department had sent him?

 

Q. Yes.

 

A. No, I don't recall that.

 

Q. And do you recall whether or not Mr. Grossman ever told you that he understands that Wilson was claiming that the Vice President had sent him on this trip?

 

A. That was the claim in the Kristof article, if I recall, but I don1 t recall Mr. Grossman repeating it, or

saying that he knew it of his own -- I just don't recall a 1 conversation with Secretary Grossman about this.

 

Q. And do you know -- do you recall any conversation with Secretary Grossman about who was responsible for sending Wilson on this trip to Niger?

 

A. I, I don't recall a conversation with him about it.

 

Q. And do you know if you ever discussed with Secretary Grossman whether Wilson's wife worked at the CIA? '

 

A. No, I don't recall ever discussing that.

 

Q. And is that something that you would remember if you

had that conversation?

 

A. I don't recall the conversation. I, I just don't recall the conversation.

 

Q. You mentioned that there came a time when you talked to the Vice President about Walter Pincus article. And can you tell us who was present when you talked to him and what was said?

 

A. I talked to him on the phone. I don't think it was anyone present when I spoke to him on the phone. He was relaying to me some information that he had learned in the first part of the conversation. And in the second part of the conversation he gave me instructions as to what I should, what I should say to reporters, and from the time frame I'm pretty sure we were talking about -- specifically about the Pincus article.

 

Q. And why don't you tell us, first, what information the Vice President told you he had learned, and then what he told you to do with it?

 

A. Okay. Well, I had some notes that I took down at that point. But my best recollection sitting here is that he had been speaking to someone who was either from the CIA or it was someone who had spoken to someone from the CIA, and he wa: relaying t o me what the CIA had said about how this came about. And it says something like -- my notes about it say something like , he was sent a tour request, our behest or

something, and then it says something about it being a functional office . So he told me that , tha t they had said that the person was debriefed in the region, i f I was -- if I recall correctly, and that had made maybe --hadn't made a written report , made an oral report, but there was a report, something along those lines . There are notes of this which I think you a l l have. Then he switched -- so he told me that . And in the course of describing this he also said to me in sort of an off-hand manner, as a curiosity , that his wife

worked a t the CIA, the person who -- whoever t h i s person was. There were no names at that stage so I didn't know Ambassador Wilson's name at that point, or the wife's name. And I made a note of that also.

 

He then went on to say, here's what we'd like you to say to the reporters, I think it was Pincus, as I said before, and he gave me three points . The first point was that we did not request a mission to Niger. The second point, as I recall , was that we had not gotten a report back from the mission to Niger until -- or we hadn't seen any such report until after the State of the Union, when these newspaper articles started. And there was a third point which is that -- I think, was that he had seen the National Intelligence Estimate and that that's what he took to be authoritative. I think those were the points. I remember this from my notes more than actual recollection but I looked at the notes in connection with this inquiry. He then said to make these several points and I asked him if he also wanted me to make an earlier point which he had made in the first half of the conversation, which I think I omitted to tell you, which was that the Office of the Vice President, the State Department and the -- some other bureaucracy, maybe Defense Department, had asked questions about this -- about an earlier report about Niger, that it wasn't just the Office of the Vice

President asking questions. And I asked the Vice President -- I went ahead and numbered, I sort of numbered these as he was talking to me, and I remember numbering that one the fourth point and saying, do you want me to -- excuse me, should we say, when I talk to the press that we were not the only office

asking this question? And he quite rightly said, no, we shouldn't say that, that should be said by the Agency because we didn't know that. That was all we knew was what we had asked, and it would be better to get the State (sic) Department spokesperson, who at the time was I think Bill Harlow, to be the one who would say that to the press. And I that's about what I recall from the conversation, according to the notes.

 

Q. And we'll go through the notes in a moment. You just referred to Bill Harlow as the State Department I

spokesperson.

 

A. I mis-spoke, I'm sorry. Central Intelligence Agency spokesperson. Thank you.

[/b]

[Guest LAW]

Q. Now, in -- you referenced that you recall the Vice President told you something about a functional office. Can you explain what you understood a functional office to mean?

 

A. The State Department and the agency, to my understanding, have regional offices, that is an office which

focuses in a given region of the world such as the Middle East or Europe. They also have some offices which look globally at a type of problem like proliferation. Maybe there's one for ecology or something, I don't know. But anyway, one of the -- a functional office, for instance on counterproliferation which is the one I think that was involved here, would have a global look at the problem. There might be a terrorism office, for example, that would look at terrorism globally. It would not be limited to Middle East or Southeast Asia, or

Northeast Asia.

 

Q. And did you understand, when he told you that this former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA, do you have an I understanding or whether or not she worked in that functional office?

 

A. Well, that's interesting. I'd have to look at the note. I think -- my recollection is that I knew she worked ir

the function -- is that the note indicates I knew 'she worked at the functional office.

 

Q. And we'll come back to the note in a minute. Before we look at your actual notes, how certain are you from memory that the information about the wife working in the functional office at the CIA, the wife of this former ambassador, was information that Vice President Cheney imparted to you as opposed to information that you imparted to Vice President

Cheney?

 

A. Oh, I'm pretty certain of that.

 

Q. And what makes you certain?

 

A. I sort of remember him saying it, you know, in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion. That's my recollectior of it anyway.

 

Q. Okay. And since we weren't there --

 

A. And also since I wrote it down like that, it would indicate to me it was something I was taking down as he was speaking. Sometimes I make my notes as he speaks. Sometimes it turns out I didn't need to write it down, but I don't want to make him -- you know, he is the Vice President. I don't want to make him take time to repeat himself, so I try and get some stuff and then if I figure it's not important, I can get rid of it later.

 

Q. And what was it about the way he discussed that fact with' you that sticks in your mind or lets you know it was a curiosity or off-hand? .

 

A. It came out of order. You know, he was going through the order, and as I recall, it came in later. And

tone of voice, as I recall it. I think I'm recalling accurately.

 

Q. And what, what was different about the tone of voice?

 

A. Sort of the way -- it wasn't like the other tone of voices which was much more matter of fact and straight. It was just a little bit of a curiosity sort of thing.

 

Q. And not to mince words, but when he was curious, was he curious about it in a sort of a negative way? Did he think that was sort of odd that a former ambassador's wife worked in the functional office at the CIA?

 

A. I wouldn't say negative, but I would say it was a 1 fact that, you know, it wasnl t -- not everybody's wife works there, so it was a new fact, thatls all.

 

Q. Did you take it -- have any understanding whether or not Vice President Cheney thought that that fact might have played into his selection as the envoy for this trip?

 

A. No, we didn't, we didn't discuss that. It was just -- he just said what he said.

 

Q. Did you take -- get any indication from the Vice President - -

 

A. You talking about in that conversation?

 

Q In that conversation.

 

A. Yeah, I don't recall that.

 

Q. And any indication in that conversation that the Vice President thought this might be sort of nepotism that she worked at the Counterproliferation Division and the envoy went

Ion this trip?

 

A. I don't recall that.

[Guest LAW]

Now, let me -- before I show you the notes, let me go back in time to a conversation you said you had with the briefer.

 

A. With the what, I'm sorry?

 

With the briefer, Craig Schmall.

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Do you recall whether that took place before or after the conversation you just described with the Vice

President?

 

A. No, I think I have a date in my notes. I don't I recall.

 

Q. Okay. And was that an in-person meeting with the riefer, your daily meeting?

 

A. I meet daily with him. Whether I passed this question to him in the briefing or over the phone, I'm not

I sure.

 

Q. Okay. And do you know if the Vice President I participated in this conversation or I not? I

 

A. I would think not. If it was, if it was in person. Usually I don't take his time with questions. And my -- so my guess is that I would either do it on the side or before he got there in the morning. I don't usually ask the briefer questions and make him sit there while I ask a question. So my recollection of it would be that normally I don't do it that way.

 

Q. Okay. Let me show you a note that is Bates Stamped (either 2307 or 2921. And --

 

MS. KEDIAN. 2307.

 

MR. FITZGEFLALD. 2307 --

 

MS. KEDIAN. We're going to mark this as Exhibit I

 

BY MR. FITZGERALD:

 

Q. I'll ask you to look at that Exhibit, 51, and ask you if that's a note reflecting your conversation with the I briefer, Craig Schmall, about your inquiry, your question?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And is that your handwriting?

 

A. Yes,sir.

 

Q. And a couple of things. This is the first one of your notes we're taking a look at. Is it fair to say that you

have your own little shorthand?

 

A. Yes, sir, my apologies.

 

Q. And yourself, you refer to yourself as SL?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And you refer to the Vice President in your notes with a Y with a line on the top of it?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And some of your notes have a date. Can you tell the Grand Jury what the date is of these notes?

 

A. It looks like 6-9, June 9.

 

Q. And also, you refer at times to OVP in your notes?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And what does OVP mean?

 

A. Office of the Vice President.

 

Q. And before we get into the substance of this note, what do you do with these notes after you, after you write them?

 

A. It depends. I have different types of notes that I treat differently.

 

Q. These types of notes, what would you do with them?

 

A. This type of note, looks like a note that I wrote to save -- so I probably wrote down the note --

 

Q. I'm going to put a different document -- I'm sorry -- I'm sorry --

 

A. This looks like a note that I wrote to save, I wrote and put in some file or something.

 

Q. And any particular reason you would do that? I'm trying to understand which -- what would cause you to write a note in your daily practice?

 

A. Normally what I do is I, I have -- as I say, I have different types of notes. One type of note I have are sort of action items that I'm going to take up with the Vice President that day. It may tend to look like a list and it can have anything on it, all sorts of different subject matters would be covered. So I could cover something -- as my Chief of Staff job I may have something about his residence, you know, there's a leak in the roof. Or I might have something about Iraq, or I might have something about tax policy, or Congressional, or an old friend of his. So it's just anything that I need to talk with him about that day, and I'll put all those down. Those notes I tend to throw out. But if I -- if there's something on there, written on there, that I think I need to save, I will copy that material or write it on a different sheet of paper and then save that page and then throw the other notes out so I don't have to struggle through all those old notes again.

 

Q. So for example, putting aside any personal matters you might have, like fixing a leak in the house, if you had a discussion about an upcoming trip overseas and it was in your list of things to sort of cover with the Vice President, if you covered that topic with the Vice President, would you cross it off?

 

A. Usually.

 

Q. And if you --

 

A. Or sometimes I cross it off if I didn't cover it, but I don't think it's worth covering. Sometimes I write them down and decide, ah, it's not worth bothering with. Sometimes I don't get to talk to him about everything and a day or two might pass when I didn't get to that point, and then I'll just cross if off, you know, it's no longer important to raise withhim. So crossing off is my way of saying to myself, I don't

have to read that line again.

 

Q. Okay.

 

A. More than -- that he -- than I have discussed it with him.

 

Q. And if one of the things you do on a given day is I then have meetings with the Deputies or principals meetings, I will you take notes at those separate meetings?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And will you keep those notes?

 

A. Yes Sir.

 

Q. And this is a note that you kept from June 9th, 2003. Anything about the topic that made you want to keep the note for your file?

 

A. Well, it was in the press at this point that we had purportedly made a request for this mission, and so I checked with my CIA briefer and he told me there was no OVP request about this, so I wrote down what he told me so I'd have a record of it in case I forgot and wanted to check, I'd havsomething to check. So --

 

Q. Okay. And just transliterating this note, it says, Craig -- and that would be a reference to Craig Schmall?

 

A. Correct.

 

Q. It says, "No OVP request re uranium procurement." Is that your handwriting?

 

A. Correct.

 

Q. Is that what it says?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And then above "uranium procurement" it says -- is that year after yellowcake?

 

A. No, that's Iraq and Africa yellowcake . Is that what you're asking?

 

Q. Okay, yes.

 

A. I apologize. I will apologize repeatedly today for my handwriting and my little symbols.

 

Q. Okay, so that Q is Iraq?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And the A --

 

A. It's an AFR for Africa.

 

Q. Africa yellowcake?

 

A. I think so.

 

Q. And then below it, it has a dash. Is that SL - is that Scooter Libby or the Vice President --

 

A. That's correct, yes.

 

Q. And then below that it says, was DR request in 3-03?

 

A. There was a -- DR is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and that he apparently -- according to Craig he had made a request in March of '03.

 

Q. And so does this indicate to you that it was on June 9th that you made the request for the briefer, Craig Schmall, to find out whether or not the Vice President's Office was responsible for this request for a mission?

 

A. Maybe. Let me -- if I can explain?

 

Q. Sure.

 

A. If I took this note directly, that would indicate it was on June 9. If, what I did, is I wrote this note down in

my list of action items, then June 9 might be the date that the action item -- the date of the listing in the action items.

 

MR. FITZGERALD. Okay. Now, let me show you what is -- we have the Bates Stamp No. 3079.

 

MS. KEDIAN. And this will be marked Exhibit 52.

 

BY MR. FITZGERALD:

 

Q. And for the record, some of the copies we're showing you have an unusual marking at the top that's not an official classification which is being addressed, but I can assure you there's no -- nothing sensitive in here that the Grand Jury I can't see. So --

 

A. Thankyou, sir.

 

Q . -- that shouldn't be a distraction. Okay. And if you look at that document, is that also dated June, 9, '03?

 

A. It may be one thing on this sheet actually which --

 

Q. Well, I'm not going to show it to anyone but you, We're not going to put it on the screen.

 

A. Thankyou, sir.

 

Q. Okay.

 

A. Yes, it says June -- 6-9-03 and --

 

Q. And does this have Q next to June 9-03?

 

A. Yes, it has what you probably think is a Q.

 

Q. Okay, what is it? What is next -- the thing that looks like a Q, what is it?

 

A. It's a little symbol that means I may want to later come back and make a note about that.

 

Q. Okay. And we're not going to talk about any of the entries other than those relating to --

 

A. Yes, that would be best, I think.

 

Q. Okay. If you go down, the fourth entry, the fourth tick mark, do you see the same reference there, Craig --

 

A. Yes, I do, sir.

 

Q . -- no OVP request for uranium procurement?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And under that does it say, Scootert Libby or Vice President?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q. And under that , was DR request in 3-03?

 

A. Yes Sir.

 

Q. And above uranium procurement, what does it say above uranium procurement?

 

A. I think it says -- this one is less clear than the other one. I think it's the symbol for Iraq, but I'm not

sure, and Africa yellowcake.

 

Q. Okay. And does that -- looking a t that entry, just that entry on the page, does that mirror the entry on the document --

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Q . -- Exhibit 51?

 

A. This is one I copied over.

 

MR. FITZGERALD. Okay. And we will deem marked but not put before the Grand Jury t h i s page, and deem it as 52 for the record. We'll keep that separate so that the only entry that's in the record is that particular entry.

 

BY MR. FITZGERALD:

 

Q. And is there a reason you would copy it over onto the Exhibit 51 in exactly the same format with the -- in terms of indents and punctuation?

 

A. Yeah, the indentsmean something tome. I mean, it tends to indicate to me -- it's why I write on unlined paper. It tends to indicate to me something about how the content is in the order and what it means.

 

Q. Okay. So looking at 51, does the Iraq or Africa I yellowcake written above the line have some relevance to -- the lines written above the line?

 

A. I think it has to do with another re. And I think I what happened here was this was the first time I wrote it down probably and I wrote Africa yellowcake, and then I also wanted to make clear Iraq, so I put the Iraq. And as you'll see, l it's really trivial, and I apologize, but it's directly over I the re, and it shouldn't be, so I think I wrote that second. I think I wrote Africa yellowcake, and then I went back and put in the Iraq directly above the re on the, on the note sheet.

 

Q. And do you have a practice at times of taking things off the list of what's deemed marked 52 and recreating a separate sheet?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q . -- in the identical format?

 

A. Yes, sir, because then normally I would discard the sheet.

 

Q. And the sheet then being what has been deemed marked as 52?

 

A. Yes. The ones that are sort of action item lists I would normally discard when I was done with it after I had made sure to take down anything I thought -- take down separately anything I thought I needed to keep.