Posted on 02/02/2006 11:32:04 AM PST by hipaatwo
The CIA leak prosecutor refuses to turn over evidence to Lewis Libby.
Watchers of the CIA leak investigation are buzzing over a series of letters between prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and lawyers for former Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In the letters, contained in motions filed recently by Libby's defense team and released by the court, Fitzgerald steadfastly refused to reveal whether he has any evidence that Bush administration officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or any other law by revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leak investigation, but Fitzgerald has so far not alleged that anyone acted illegally by revealing Wilson's identity. In the letters, which give outsiders a glimpse of the intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on in the case, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to turn over evidence that might point toward such an underlying crime. Fitzgerald refused.
In a December 14, 2005, letter to Fitzgerald, Libby's lawyers asked for "Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee." In the same letter, Libby's team asked for "All documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." (Those dates mark the period in which some Bush-administration officials discussed Wilson with reporters.)
Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false."
On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.
In a later letter, dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald went further, refusing to provide information about whether Wilson was an undercover agent during the last five years. Referring to a 1963 Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might point toward the defendant's innocence, Fitzgerald wrote, "We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information."
Fitzgerald's January 23 letter also referred to a conflict between the two sides over the actions of Valerie Wilson's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. "You demand access to all documents referencing Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip to Iraq," Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's lawyers in what is apparently a mistaken reference to Joseph Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger that became the focus of contention after his wife's CIA employment was made public. Prosecutors will not turn it over, Fitzgerald wrote. "The relevance of Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip is the fact that it occurred and that it became a subject of discussion in spring 2003. What took place during that trip is not relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Libby lied about his spring 2003 conversations with various reporters and government officials about Mr. Wilson's wife's employment at the Central Intelligence Agency."
Still, Fitzgerald wrote that his office will turn over "all documents in our possession reflecting conversations involving defendant Libby about Wilson's trip, or meetings Mr. Libby attended during which Mr. Wilson's trip was discussed." Fitzgerald also wrote that he does not expect to call Wilson to testify at the Libby trial.
So far, there has been little attention paid to Fitzgerald's statements on the possibility of underlying crimes in the CIA leak case. Instead, much attention has focused on a paragraph at the end of Fitzgerald's January 23 letter in which Fitzgerald wrote that "We have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." That statement has fueled much speculation on left-wing blogs that some sort of cover-up has taken place and that the White House has destroyed evidence in the leak investigation. In all the documents made public so far, however, Fitzgerald has not suggested that that has happened.
FYI
'destroyed evidence' is all we'll hear for the next 6 weeks.
Judge: Okay Mr. Fitzgerald please state your case
Fitz: Your honor I have these threads from Democratic Underground and clippings from the New York Times that started them or vice versa. I don't know.
Judge: Mr. Fitgerald I sentence you to be Scooter Libby's butler.
Does that mean Fitz never investigated whether there was an IIPA violation, the job he was hired to do in the first place???
At least Mr. Fitzgerald is admitting that the purpose of of his inquisition was not to find the truth, but to manufacture prosecutable crimes.
Anal Fitzgerald is getting caught with his pants down. He shows his true hand by not going after Wilson and Plame also.
Bump for later read
I thought that one aspect of a purjury charge was that the lie had to be material to the investigation.
If there is evidence that no crime existed, wouldn't that at least raise a legitimate inquiry of fact about whether the perjury was material?
Further, wouldn't proof that no law had been violated raise a legitimate jury issue about whether Libby had a reason to purposely mislead investigators, another hurdle of perjury and the false statements charge?
In other words, even though he was not charged with violating a statute, his statements that he didn't purposely lie and had no reason to do so would be bolstered if there was proof that there was no violation of law, and therefore no reason to lie.
drop the charges now Pat before you and your career are ruined. Nuncle grab not a great wheel as it rolls downhill.
To me (yep I know)any sane judge should throw this case out the window
In terms of significance to the society at large, I would rate this case as less important than the average DUI. But it's a lot more fun to watch.
Attempted murder is a crime. Outing Valerie apparently was not a crime. That's the distinction, IMHO.
Fitz:Mr Libby Lied.
Libby's lawyer:About what?
Fitz:About who said Valeria Flame was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she a covert agent?
Fitz: I don't know it's not germane.
Libby's lawyer:If it's not germane what did Mr. Libby lie about that is germane to this case?
Fitz: About who said she was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she?
Fitz:It's not germane.
Libby's lawyer: But Mr Libby lied about something not germane to this case?
Fitz:Yes.
Libby's lawyer: Did Mr. Libby lie about something germane to this case?
Fitz: That's what I'm saying.
Libby's lawyer: Saying what that is germane?
Fitz: That's right, germane.
Libby's lawyer: To this case.
Fitz: Yes.
Libby's lawyer: What.
Fitz: No, What's on second.
Earth to Fitzgerald, we know damage was done by traitors leaking NSA procedures ... uh, think you could look into that?
sound of crickets
Good question. A prosecutor conducts an investigation to (theoretically) determine whether a crime has be committed or not. If Libby mislead the prosecutor, destroyed evidence or liee, he could face perjury or obstruction of justice charges even if it turns out at the end of the investigation that no crime has been committed. Ahh, but therein lies the rub, the prosecutor has to (theoretically) at least be investigating an underlying crime. In this case, it appears that Libby's lawyers are trying to show that Fitz never so much as engaged in such activity. Hence, charging Libby with perjury and obstruction amounts to entrapment.
Fitz claimed, during his now famous presser, that Libby mislead him such that he could not determine if a crime had been committed. But, as many of us suspected, Fitz never asked a basic question, namely, was Plame really undercover? If not, then what crime was Fitz's investigation based upon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.