Libby Defense Plans To Call Top Journalists to the Stand

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for I. Lewis Libby Jr. will try to use some of the country's top journalists to rebut the potentially damaging testimony of their colleagues when Mr. Libby begins his defense next week against charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Mr. Libby, who is the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, is accused of lying to federal investigators and a grand jury during a criminal probe into the leaked identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The prosecution rested its case yesterday afternoon after several reporters and government officials contradicted Mr. Libby's sworn statements about his conversations with them.

Messrs. Cheney and Libby may also testify. The defense has argued that Mr. Libby innocently forgot details of the conversations because his job as a top White House aide kept him so busy. His lawyers have also sought to discredit prosecution witnesses by exposing their own memory lapses.

Among the journalists the Libby defense plans to call is the managing editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, who could cast doubt on the testimony last week of a former Times reporter, Judith Miller. Ms. Miller testified that Mr. Libby told her of Ms. Plame's identity in June and July 2003 and that she relayed the disclosure to Ms. Abramson, who was then the paper's Washington bureau chief. A lawyer for Ms. Abramson told the court yesterday that she would say she has no memory of that conversation. The prosecution sought to quash Ms. Abramson's subpoena, but Judge Reggie Walton ruled yesterday for the defense, saying he would allow her testimony.

The most well-known journalist the defense plans to call is the assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, who first rose to stardom during the Watergate scandal. He has said he learned of Ms. Plame in June 2003 — a month before her identity became public — from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage.

Lawyers for Mr. Libby also want to question an NBC News correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, about a televised interview she gave in October 2003 in which she said she and other journalists were aware that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA before that information was first reported in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak. She later backed off that statement, saying she either misspoke or was confused.

The defense wants to use her statement to raise questions about the testimony of NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert.

Mr. Russert said repeatedly that he did not discuss Ms. Plame with Ms. Mitchell or another NBC reporter, David Gregory, before first reading her name in Mr. Novak's column. He also contradicted Mr. Libby 's testimony that Mr. Russert told him that "all the reporters" knew Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.

But Mr. Libby's lawyers may not get to ask Ms. Mitchell about her October 2003 statement, which has not been shown to the jury and which the prosecution argues is inadmissible. Judge Walton is expected to rule Monday, but he said yesterday that he was wary of getting into matters that were "far afield" from the central issues in the case, needlessly prolonging the three-week-old trial. He made reference to another high-profile trial, that of O.J. Simpson, which lasted nine months. "This is not any O.J. situation," a defense lawyer, Theodore Wells Jr., said at one point, prompting laughter from the courtroom.

The arguments over motions followed the testimony of Mr. Russert, who faced a second day of grueling cross-examination from the defense. Drawing on a clip of Mr. Russert on the "Imus in the Morning " program excitedly comparing the night before Mr. Libby's indictment to "Christmas Eve," Mr. Wells sought to portray the "Meet the Press" moderator as biased against the defendant.

In a lengthy exchange, Mr. Russert appeared to frustrate Mr. Wells by repeatedly saying he did not recall the "Imus" appearance or another appearance on the "Today" show hours before the indictment was announced on October 28, 2005.

"I'm on television a lot," Mr. Russert said at one point, as Mr. Wells pressed him to explain how he could forget network appearances during the height of a major story in which he had been involved.

Mr. Fitzgerald, in redirect questioning, tried to put the matter to rest. "Did you take joy in Mr. Libby's indictment?" he asked the newsman.

"No, not at all," Mr. Russert replied firmly. "And I don't take joy in being here."