Libby Prosecution Witness Grossman Makes Defense Case
In cross-examination by Ted Wells, Marc Grossman, the first prosecution witness, explained the reason that neither he nor his boss Richard Armitage had read a high critical article by Nicholas Kristoff that sparked the chain of events of the Valerie Plame affair this way: “I had about a billion things to do” and “couldn’t be troubled” to find out what happened in the past because he was so occupied by Iraq and other issues.
That’s precisely the defense’s argument with respect to Libby.
Grossman has been a very good witness, though, in that he comes across as earnest, scrupulously honest, and a hard working civil servant that was “embarrassed” that he couldn’t immediately tell the vice president’s chief of staff some information well below his span of control. Indeed, he is very self-effacing about failings that are obvious only in hindsight.
I think Wells is making a mistake in being confrontational in questioning Grossman, who is clearly being honest and whose testimony is on very minor facts that were easily called into question early in the cross-x with no resistance from Grossman. Indeed, Grossman shows no signs of animosity to Libby or trying to do anything but rely events as he remembers them.
Related Posts
- None Found
About James Joyner
the ascendancy of a “citizen media†to balance the primary analysis. James Joyner observes an interesting rhetorical diminution in the defense team’s references to Valerie Plame likening it to a nostalgic romp down Lewinsky Lane. Also, Joyner questions the wisdom of a confrontational cross for a witness so clearly cooperating with the case. Finally, From the Desk of Patrick Fitzgerald posts examples of Libby’s schedule noting that he was no busier than Grossman, yet somehow one of these men needed no reminder to tell the truth.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
James – how many days has the judge scheduled for trial?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
It’s scheduled 4-6 weeks with meetings only Monday through Thursday minus a federal holiday or two.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Thanks. Means I will likely miss the verdict, bummer.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Excellent reporting, James.
When you can, you might want to read this:
Maguire on Gregory
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Just because Grossman wasn’t obsessed with Wilson’s wife, doesn’t mean Libby wasn’t. Or Cheney wasn’t.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
James, I’m really enjoying your coverage.
Isn’t it Patrick Fitzgerald, not Peter Fitzgerald? Or are we referring to different people?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Armitage was. To the point of leaking and gossiping about her to a bunch of reporters.
Of course Grossman busy pretending Wilson had never told him about his CIA connections.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Oh yeah. Everyone is lying ‘cept ole Scooter …
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
[...] The Libby team, though, is being far too heavy-handed in my estimation. When cross-examining Marc Grossman (see here and here), for example, it seemed to me that he had, quite amiably, given them exactly the answers they wanted in the first five minutes. They continued to belabor the point for another two hours, spread over two days, and challenged his integrity. Ultimately, they scored a few points but they may have done so at the cost of alienating the jury. [...]
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0