Fitzgerald Distorting the Evidence to Smear Cheney (..AGAIN !!!)

The American Thinker ^ | May 24th, 2006 | Clarice Feldman

[IrishMike]

I’ve argued that the Special Counsel has criminalized a political dispute and increasingly seems to be using his position, not to advance his case, but to smear the defendant and the Administration.

Either that, or he seems to have a very spotty knowledge of the facts in the case he is pursuing. Last night in response to Fitzgerald’s representations about the news articles he intended to place in evidence, Libby filed court papers that underscored this shocking lack of command of the facts of the case.

[IrishMike]

In this filing, Libby says:

The prosecution wants to introduce a copy of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed that includes notations written by the Vice President, even though it is aware that Mr. Libby testified before the grand jury that he did not see this document until it was shown to him by the FBI in November 2003. On his first day of grand jury testimony, when asked if he recalled discussing this particular document with the Vice President, Mr. Libby testified: “I don’t recall that . . . I subsequently learned that he had such an article from the FBI agents who talked to me.” During Mr. Libby’s second appearance before the grand jury, the Special Counsel asked him: ”[W]hy don’t I show you the copy of the July 6th column with some handwriting on it. And I believe we showed this document to you the last time, or at least discussed it, and you indicated that you had not seen this copy of the article with the handwriting until the FBI showed it to you?” Mr. Libby responded: “That’s my recollection, sir.”

Yet, despite such clear testimony, the government asserts that the Vice President’s notations are relevant to the charges against Mr. Libby and that this document is admissible. The government argues that those notations

support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the article reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson’s Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant’s immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson’s wife had “sent him on a junket.”

The government evidently wants to argue to the jury that “facts that were viewed as important” by the Vice President would have been important to Mr. Libby too, and that the Vice President’s notations can be used to show what Mr. Libby focused on during July 2003. These arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgement that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important at trial — precisely what Mr. Libby has been arguing in the pending motion.

York also notes about the filing:

“One, it sheds light on why Fitzgerald worded his argument as he did. Saying that the Cheney annotations “support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson” would lead any reasonable reader to think that Fitzgerald was saying Libby had seen the document, when in fact Fitzgerald did not have evidence to support that contention, and had Libby’s testimony saying he, Libby, had not seen it. “

This is the second time Fitzgerald has misrepresented material respecting the Vice President. Earlier he made false representations about the Vice President’s role in the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate, created a media storm and waited a full week to correct it. Quoting the Washington Post:

[ravingnutter]

Earlier he made false representations about the Vice President’s role in the declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate, created a media storm and waited a full week to correct it.

Yes, there was a HUGE misrepresentation about that which was NEVER corrected in the media to my knowledge...from my files:

FYI...the statement the MSM has been making:

On July 18, 2003, the administration, facing criticism for the intelligence used to justify the war, declassified an eight-page part of the NIE dubbed "key judgments" and conducted a lengthy background briefing with reporters to discuss it.

“Key judgments" is the operative word here. They were declassified by Tenet in October of 2002, six days after the NIE was complete per the following information:

On October 7, 2002 DCI Tenet sent a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee declassifying portions of its new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin News Release

Another article:

A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."

Source

A copy of the Key Judgments document can be found here. Warning: .pdf file.

As usual, the MSM gets it wrong. More info I just found:

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." - Statement of Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL).

[Danae]

So the question comes to mind, "Who is putting the 'squeeze' on Fitz?"

This is a Bogus case? Is his EGO so big that he can not let go of what is clearly a loser? Or is he just that stupid?

[rawcatslyentist]

>"This is the second time Fitzgerald has misrepresented material respecting the Vice President."

What no perjury charges for Fitzy? Next thing ya know ^saDan Blather will be presenting more fake but accurate forgeries as evidence!

[concerned about politics]

I’ve argued that the Special Counsel has criminalized a political dispute and increasingly seems to be using his position, not to advance his case, but to smear the defendant and the Administration.

If he can get a movie and book deal out of this case, he'll never have to work again.
Bad company corrupts good character. "It's the money and fame, stupid."

[God luvs America]

Either that, or he seems to have a very spotty knowledge of the facts in the case he is pursuing.

Was this ever in question?? For cripes sake, after two years when the major investigation was over it took Bob Woodward to raise his hand and say, "you forgot me.....you fortgot me...:

[concerned about politics]

but to smear the defendant and the Administration.

I wondered why the democrats were praising this guy so much since day one and referring to him as "an honest, unbiased prosecutor". It was a huge red flag, but I checked his bio and it didn't show the political side that was hiding underneath.
Now, his "cream" is floating to the top. It's obvious why the left was so orgasmic over this guy. He's Valerie Plame in drag.

[the Real fifi]

While this short blog cites York, its author is Clarice Feldman,

[IrishMike]

Yes I see that now, thanks.

author is Clarice Feldman.

[shamusotoole]

I wonder what David Schippers might have to say about this process? Bet it would be plenty.