Libby’s Defense Rests Case in CIA Leak Trial

NY Times ^ | February 14, 2007 | NEIL A. LEWIS

[freekitty]

I am surprised. I don't know if they are making a statement or not. But it is inappropriate for the well being of the accused or the opposing side. These jurors as well as everyone in the courtroom should realize what the jurors actions may say. And with our laws today that could be many matters of interpretation which is grossly unfair.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Hey, this is a DC Judge and Jury... Fitzmas indeed. May have to wait for the appeal or the pardon.

[Williams]

I generally agree. Libby has an absolute right not to testify, and the judge would know that was an option for the defense. It also seems to me the defense should have pretty wide latitude in calling witnesses and impeaching the witnesses against Libby.

In terms of Libby's state of mind, I certainly have heard attorneys argue in closing about explanations and motives for their client's behavior, without the defendant having testified. I get the impression that the judge here so constrained the defense case that Wells now believes he has strong appeal grounds. I also think Libby is going to be convicted by this jury.

In terms of an appeal, take the judge's ruling that classified material would not be allowed in to show what Libby was dealing with at the time. The judge seems to have made comments that he earlier leaned toward letting that in because the judge thought Libby would testify. If Libby has a right not to testify, it seems to me the defense has the right to introduce evidence that indicates Libby just forgot some of this Plame stuff. After all, that is the central issue in the case.

It's kind of like you're accused of lying about a conversation you had with someone in the lobby of an office building, and the jury isn't allowed to hear that the conversation was one of a hundred you had in the WTC lobby on 9-11 right after the planes hit and during the evacuation. It's awfully relevant.

[Eagles6]

Let's not forget that there was no crime. Plame was not covert. Wilson and Plame should be prosecuted for treason for undermining the war effort and aiding and abetting the enemy.

What's lost in the big picture is that there was a duty to expose them. She sent her unqualified husband to Niger, without the VP's knowledge. He came back and backed up, with his verbal report, that saddam was trying to buy uranium. He then went to the nyt (where else?) and lied to hurt the war effort!

Two questions:

(1) Why no written report to the CIA?

(2)Why was there no non-disclosure agreement signed by Wilson?

[Texas Songwriter]

It boils down to Russert said, Libby said. That is it. Nothing more. The two disagree under oath and it will turn on believability of Russert.

[glorgau]

> But then the President will be well-disposed to pardon him, and probably will."

The President that can't find a Veto Pen might not be able to find his Pardon Pen either.

[Valin]

Wednesday, February 14, 2007


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjRhMWM5MzA0ZTU5M2Y3MTA3NWIwMTE2MjBlOGRkMWE=

The Astonishing 'Stipulation' [John Podhoretz]


The Libby defense ended its case today in Washington, which means that there will be all kinds of instructions from the judge tomorrow and then closing statements next Tuesday. One fascinating detail from the last few minutes. Libby's team argued for weeks for the right to put the people who presented Libby with the Morning Intelligence Brief every day on the stand — to show how many big and frightening issues he had to deal with during the course of every day that might fog the details of his memory of or focus on Joe Wilson and his wife.

In the end, the briefers were not called. Instead, Libby's lawyers read a "stipulation" into the record to indicate what they were talking about. The leftist site firedoglake.com is liveblogging the trial, and has done a dirty transcription of the stipulation.

It's an astounding document. It's hard to imagine how anyone could keep anything straight given the sheer blizzard of information contained in Libby's briefing. The stipulation focuses on one single day, June 14, 2003, and during the briefing, according to firedoglake, "Libby was presented with info concerning:

"Bomb diffused...explosions...E African extremist network...Info on possible AQ attack in US...conncern about specific vulnerability to terrorist attack...Proposed ME plan, Israeli military action...Country's security affecting AQ...International org's position concerning country's nuke program...Iraq's porous borders present security threat...Demonstrations in Iran turn violent...Israeli offer of cease fire to Palestineans...Memorandum assessing Iranian' pres' view on terrorism...Problems in leadership in PLO...Foreign media analysis concerning Egyptian treatment on Paletinian conflict...Media, opposition of Israeli public to attacks...Info on Egypt process ME peace process ...Palestinian groups and Israel...Constraints on Israeli military...Saddam Hussein published on website...Memo in Iraqi WMD...Housing shortage in Iraq...Info on 1920 Mesopotamia and insurgency on moden-day Iraq...Potential effect of improved governance in Iraq..."

Wait, that's not all. There was also a terror threat list for that one day:



1) Concern over possible suicide info to hujack airplane by AQ linked group

2) Concern about terrorists providing support for business transaction by AQ

3) Potential suicide attacks against US forces in IRaq

4) Potential terrorist attacks against Americans in Karbala by unspecified means

5) Potential attack in Ethiopia
6) Potential attack in Nairobi

7) Potential attack in Kabul Afghanistan and Pakistan [sorry, lost the countiing here]

8) Concern over surveillance in Beirut and attack against embassy vehicles


9) Unspecified terror attack against unspecified

10) Potential attack in Budapest

11) Potential attacks in Kabul by unspecified group

12) Video taping in US university

13) Turkish and Pakistani extremists.

Welcome to the life of a senior White House staffer working on the most crucial issues of our time. Good morning, Scooter.

[Valin]

Did you see the part in this story that said that the Judge said that the defense could tell the jury that Libby "had a lot on his plate"...

See reply 47

[1L]

>>That almost assuredly was weighed by the judge in some of the decisions he made earlier in the case.<<

It shouldn't have been.

If the judge doesn't really think this is an easy ground for appeal, he's an idiot. How in the world can he instruct the jury to ignore the fact that the defendant didn't testify in his own behalf when he's not doing that?

[CutePuppy]

Instead of reposting, I'm pretty sure here's the reason for wrapping up the case at this stage:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784841/posts?page=116#116

[San Jacinto]

I don't buy that Levine did not discuss with Russert an issue that could have dire effects on Russert's reputation.

What's more, it is totally irrelevant. Any info the lawyer has is imputed to his client. That is fundamental. There are lots of cases that say where a person testifies and is given special accomodations (like-you won't be prosecuted on this crime if you testify "truthfully") -those accomodations are relevant to the credibility of the witness. The witness CANNOT just say "Hey, they made that deal with my lawyer and I didn't even know about it." Those accomodations go before the jury on the issue of bias and credibility. Period.

Here, Fitzfong mad a deal with Russert's lawyer that the govt would not raise the issue (or publicize) the fact that Russert had already freely spoken with the FBI at the same time he was publicly championing the First Amendment Priviledge of the Free Press in resisting a GJ subpoena. If the govt had raised this issue of prior waiver, then Russert would have been exposed as a hypocrite. You can bet Russert did not want anyone to know he had secretely cooperated with the govt. It was a big deal to him, and I'm sure his lawyer let him know that he was better off to make a deal with Fitzfong regarding the GJ testimony. Libby got screwed by this ruling, but it's been par for the course. Walton is in the prosecutor's hip pocket.

[San Jacinto]

I didn't even know about the T-shirts. I have been rating Libby's best chance in this trial as a jury deadlock, and I am now lowering those chances from about 10% to about 2%. Juror's getting along as a unit do not bode well for the Defendant in this trial. It's now 98% for conviction, IMO.

[Vicomte13]

I didn't read that he instructed the jury to take note of the lack of testimony. I read (in admittedly garbled syntax) that the judge made these points to counsel out of the presence of the jury.

Counsel misled the judge. He can't make the point about the lack of testimony before the jury, but he absolutely can weigh it when making his OWN discretionary calls on procedural and evidentiary issues. Looks like he did.

If the Appellate Court agrees with him, then he was right.
The Appellate Court probably will agree with him. After all, what was put into EVIDENCE that Libby was busy with national defense matters? That was supposed to be presented by Libby in testimony. Well, defense pulled the rug out and didn't put Libby up there, so they can't make the argument to the jury based on evidence they didn't present. Sounds like the judge got it right, evidence-wise. The fact that he certainly took a great deal of malicious delight in doing so can only be expected - I would have if counsel had screwed with me like that. So long as the judge is right on the law, the smile and warm glow he gets inside reminding counsel who is in command in his courtroom is not a legal matter.

Sure, defense can argue on appeal that it's all unfair. But how are they going to win? What EVIDENCE did they present that Libby was overwhelmed with national defense matters? He COULD HAVE presented that evidence, on direct, but that would have subjected him to cross. Counsel told the judge Libby WOULD present evidence on direct, but then shied away from the cross (I suspect to protect higher-ups, I suspect because the fix is already in on the Libby pardon, so losing doesn't ultimately matter but keeping higher-ups from being subject to cross does). The evidence wasn't presented. Without the foundational evidence, counsel cannot make the argument to the jury. The judge said so, and he was well within his power to do so. That the judge did so angrily and with a good deal of malicious delight? Well, what do you EXPECT when you screw with a judge? He's got the power, and he will jump all over your head and go cock-a-doodle-do if you forget it. Like here.

Of course my comments are all speculation from a garbled news report, so none of this amounts to more than armchair commentary.

[San Jacinto]

So if I am at the Rotary meeting at the time of the bank heist, I have to take the stand in order to prove my whereabouts at the time of the crime. Others with knowledge of my whereabouts just won't do the trick.

In fact, the defense never categorically said that Libby would testify, as I understand it. If the judge assumed Libby would take the stand, that's his problem. In any event, evidence of Libby's involvement with major issues should not depend solely on his testimony anyway. To say Libby must testify to prove such matters were greatly weighing on his mind is an absurd proposition.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The ruling makes sense. There was no evidence submitted at trial that other things were more important to Libby than the Plame thing."

You're right, Libby had NOTHING to do that was more important than Valerie Plame. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, domestic terrorism, al Quaeda - all of these things pale in comparison to Valerie Plame's bit part in the Joe Wilson saga. (major sarcasm)

[Steve_Seattle]

The judge is incompetent. In disallowing Mitchell, he prevented the defense from making the following argument:

1. Fleischer testified he told NBC's David Gregory about Plame.
2. Gregory is a colleague of Russert and Andrea Mitchell.
3. Mitchell said [later recanted, unconvincingly] that "everyone knew" about Plame.
4. Mitchell, Gregory, and Russert - WITHOUT A DOUBT - shared information on important issues.
5. Therefore, there is reason to believe that Russert knew about Plame before he talked with Libby, and forgot about it, like he had forgotten virtually everything else the defense questioned him about.
6. Therefore, it is quite possible that Russert mentioned Plame to Libby.
7. Moreover, is it really credible that Russert - the great journalist - failed to engage Libby about the Wilson affair when he unexpectedly had him on the phone? You don't get to the top of the news business by blowing opportunities like that.

[1L]

Maybe I'm missing a federal rule, but attorneys are 1) not required to tell the judge their strategy, and 2) are or should be open to changing their game play after the brunt of the prosecution's case. In other words, if the judge feels he was mislead, that's tough. The attorneys have a duty to their client, not to keep an obviously biased judge up to speed on what's going on.

As far as the evidence goes, they CAN make a bill that would outline what evidence would be presented if allowed, and this will give the appellate court an idea of what the evidence is.