3 pm, court back in session… More questions about the press ‘gaggle’ in July 2003. Condi Rice tells press that Wilson’s “mission was not known to anyone in the White House.” Rice had been surprised by questions about Wilson’s trip that spring on one of the Sunday morning news talk shows…but in any event Fleischer says he had not briefed her.

Fleischer recalls telling David Gregory of NBC News and John Dickerson of Time that Ambassador Wilson had gone to Niger at the behest of his wife, who worked for CIA. He volunteered the information; they didn’t ask about it. It came in the context of what a bad week it had been for the Administration. Because the erroneous report had aired on CBS the night before, Fleishcher ‘volunteered’ the information. It was to be his last week on the job–and a miserable week it was turning into!

Gregory was free to report the information Fleischer had given him on July 11, 2003. So was John Dickerson of Time. Gregory worked with Tim Russert at NBC; Dickerson with Matt Cooper at Time. Defense than asks about a Time.com article dated July 17, 2003 entitled “War on Wilson.”

The article mentions that both Time reporters and Robert Novak had been told by White House officials that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and had sent Joe Wilson on his trip to Niger.

The next morning questions mounted about the ’sixteen words.’ Fleischer was ‘tasked’ with answering them. Other questions concerned whether the President still had confidence in CIA head George Tenet. “Part of my job was to deal with that tension between CIA and the Administration,” says Fleischer.

In a conversation with Bill Harlow, his counterpart at CIA, Fleischer tried to explain the Administration’s viewpoint. Harlow “was not happy” with the charge that CIA was to blame for the mistaken sixteen words.

Fleischer then called Walter Pincus at the Washington Post and another unnamed reporter at the New York Times in an attempt to counter the CBS report that the President had known the sixteen words were erroneous but had included them in the SOTU address nonetheless. He cannot recall whom Dan Bartlett contacted in regard to the matter, but presumes it was the “Sunday talk shows.”

Fleischer called Pincus because he knew he was covering the controversy but was not on the trip to Africa with Condi Rice.

Defense attorney Jeffress then slips in a question about Fleischer’s immunity, apparently trying to surprise him. Fleischer says the only way he would know about that would be through conversations with his lawyers — conversations that are privileged, or course.

Prosecution up now; asks about Fleischer’s contention that the CIA had sent Wilson to Africa on his own volition. Fitzgerald also asks about the Libby lunch in July 2003. Fleischer says he only had uncertainty about whether Libby had actually mentioned the name of Valerie Plame — but he was certain that Libby told him that she was Wilson’s wife and worked at CIA. Fleischer also says he has ‘no animus’ toward Scooter Libby.

Judge Walton then asks why Fleischer didn’t say anything about Valerie Plame at a press gaggle on July 12, 2003. Fleischer says again that he just didn’t think it was so important at that time — more important was explaining that the President had not intentionally misled the public. Walton asks if Fleischer had ever thought the Plame information was classified, given that Libby had told him it weas “hush-hush.” He says he never heard that phrase before — and whenever anyone told him something classified, they informed him ahead of time that it was so.

Fleischer is dismissed and the next witness is called: David S. Addington, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. After spelling out his resume and experience, Addington is asked about the events of spring of 2003, and then of a conversation he had in summer 2003 with Scooter Libby about declassifying information. Libby asked if the President had authority to declassify information. Addington answered in the affirmative. That authority, Addington says, flows “directly from the Constitution.” It is “open-and-shut,” says Addington — no doubt about it.

In the same time frame, Addington spoke with Libby about CIA paperwork. “Would there be records at CIA if someone there sent a person on a mission?” That would depend in part if the mission were operational or not, says Addington. If so, there would be paperwork approval of that. If the mission involved instead the non-operational, analytical side, there would probably be a contract, and a money trail or receipt for the use of the money. So it was likely there would be a paper trail in any event. The conversation took place after Ambassador Wilson appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

Prior to that conversation, Addington was not aware of Plame’s work for CIA. Nor did he learn of it from that conversation.

At the end of September 2003, the Justice department initiated an investigation into the Wilson matter,” and Addington was asked to preserve all records connected with it. He wrote a memo to White House employees instructing them in writing what to do to gather any relevant documents and send them to him. He then goes through them and forwards them to Justice.

The proicess is a little different with email, because of internal White House operations. In any evnet, Addington was in charge of searching and delivering documents on the “Wilson matter” to the Justice Department — those that Addington determined to be ‘responsive’ to the request.

What about documents Addington felt were not relevant? Here the FBI sometimes came and looked at the material to make a determination that Addington was being properly ‘responsive.’

Prosecution then takes Addington through a number of the documents, pausing only to note that “their government is NOT contending that any documents were withheld,” but merely wanted to establish the process of documentation that Addington had undertaken.

Judge Walton announces at 4:50 that “we are going to break a little early,” and again cautions the jury not to discuss the case or pay attention to any media concerning it.

It’s not clear yet where the examination of David Addington is heading, but in conclusion, the prosecution is predictably building its case very methodically (no surprise to close observers of Patrick Fitzgerald). The testimony by both Cathie Martin and Ari Fleischer that Scooter Libby told them of Plame’s identity before he claims to have learned it from Tim Russert of NBC News seems quite damaging, and defense attorneys had not succeeded in doing much to attack the credibility of either Martin or Fleischer. As White House insiders, they would seem to have little reason to want to hurt Libby’s cause. Nevertheless, their testimony thus far undoubtedly has.

On the other hand, the defense has yet to present its case…