"We will defend vigorously against these charges" (Statement by Libby's Lawyer)

National Review Online ^ | 10/28/05 | Joseph Tate & Lewis Libby

[frankjr]

LINK: Statement from Libby's Lawyer

[PhiKapMom]

Thank you! So it is a fancy name for what used to be called patent attorney? Figures

[montag813]

Lewis Libby could have made untold millions in the corporate world. But he chose to devote these years to public service. And for what? To be trashed and indicted over spurious non-offenses against 2 Socialist operatives trying to derail the War on Terror? Valerie Plame should have been fired 2 years ago for arranging for her own husband's trip to Niger--a clear violation of CIA protocol, which bans such nepotistic scheming. Also, Wilson himself fabricated the whole episode, which is clearly treason, given that he conspired with foreign powers to delude the Congress, and lied about his activites--a fact which the Congressional investigation made plain.

President Bush was grossly mistaken in ever permitting a special counsel to be named. I said so at the time and was lambasted on this forum for daring to question the West Wing's poltiical genius, and that this would backfire on the Wilsons and RATs. No one is saying that anymore. But the cat is out of the bag, and the time has come for the President to break his 2 year silence, and to expose the Wilsons for the treasonous charlatans they really are. Otherwise he will have surrendered the fate of his second term to enemies of America, to the detriment of all citizens.

[Feiny]

Depends on what the definition of advised is....

[PhiKapMom]

Exactly and we seem to be some of the few Freepers that see it that way. Must have had to been there, done that to understand!

Libby should have kept his mouth SHUT -- you are so right!

[Sonar5]

It says vigorously on the document, not B.

[dfwgator]

Who is this lawyer Joseph Tate? Is he a criminal defense attorney or the one he had that was versed in intellectual property rights?

Is he related to "Terry Tate, Office Linebacker?"

[gov_bean_ counter]

SAEDA, Year after year after year. LOL

[conservative in nyc]

I don't know what Title 18, Section 793 has to do with anything.

Scooter Libby was mainly indicted for lying to the FBI and grand jury about how he learned about Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. He claimed he learned from Tim Russert, when Tim Russert said that he never spoke to Mr. Libby about Ms. Plame, and other evidence shows that he knew about her identity before speaking to Russert. That other evidence includes Ari Fleisher's (presumed) grand jury testimony that Mr. Libby told him about Ms. Plame's identity, (presumed) grand jury testimony from others in the administration (including an Undersecretary of State and Libby's CIA briefer) that Mr. Libby spoke with them about Ms. Plame before speaking to Russert, and a pre-Russert fax to his office about the issue.

These charges, on their face, are serious. Flame away, but they don't appear to me to be trumped up or evidence of a vendetta by a special prosecutor run amok. And it's not just question of "Russert, Cooper and Miller said" versus "Libby said", as some here have claimed.

Of course, these are just the ALLEGATIONS of a special prosecutor and grand jury, and Scooter Libby is innocent until proven guilty. But IF the allegations are proven, what Libby did was both illegal and really stupid. You don't lie to the FBI or a grand jury. Period.

[PhilipFreneau]

Earth to Libby. Never, ever waive your right to plead the Fifth Amendment to any prosecutor. Prosecutors seldom seek justice, they just want to win.

[BlessedByLiberty]

"Over at the DUmp they were all calling this "Fitzmas."

Looks like DUers got Grinchmas, doesn't it?

Discovery is going to be hell for the Wilsons and the MSM.

I really want Libby to fight this, calling for an immeidate trial just as Delay has done.

[dirtboy]

For nearly 2 years that butt boil fritzgerald told Libby he was not the target then in the last week he sends the FBI to finally interview pflame's neighbors to find out if they knew she worked for the CIA, and then rushes to indict.

You know what that tells me? That Fitz was desperate for an indictment, decided his best shot was with Libby, and went through a half-hearted exercise to "prove" his assertion that Plame's CIA employment was not common knowledge.

Sorry, Fitz, but asking a few neighbors doesn't prove that, and that WILL come out in the trial, if this sham indictment makes it that far.

[monkapotamus]

Or this Tate?

[joebuck]

"I can't wait for discovery to begin."

Unfortunately, there's virtually no discovery allowed in Federal criminal prosecutions. Scoot will be lucky to get the Judge to agree to let him see the Grand Jury transcripts.

[freedumb2003]

Discovery is going to be hell for the Wilsons and the MSM.

Buahahahahaha! That is a VERY good point. Remember what discovery did to BJ Clinton!

It is so funny, the Lefties think all these meaningless attacks using the court system indicate a malaise for this Administration. The fact they all have/will been beaten back when the facts come to light indicate this is just the Left using the only mechanism left to them: Attack politics using partisan hacks in the judiciary.

[dirtboy]

He claimed he learned from Tim Russert, when Tim Russert said that he never spoke to Mr. Libby about Ms. Plame, and other evidence shows that he knew about her identity before speaking to Russert.

OK, let's look at one of the perjury charges. Here is what Libby said as to why he told Russert that he did not know that Plame was CIA:

. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

And here is where Fitz says the perjury kicks in:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Here's the problem. First of all, Fitz is saying that Russert never asked that question.

But if that is the case, then how can you also indict Libby for lying about his response to a non-existent question? It just doesn't make sense.

Libby is being indicted basically for having different recollections than Russert and Cooper. Which is pretty weak.

[carl in alaska]

"But IF the allegations are proven, what Libby did was both illegal and really stupid. You don't lie to the FBI or a grand jury. Period."

I agree. It looks like he may have acted very stupidly here. I'll be interested to see what his defense strategy will be.

[carl in alaska]

"But if that is the case, then how can you also indict Libby for lying about his response to a non-existent question? It just doesn't make sense."

Not quite. It looks like Fitz has indicted Libby for allegedly manufacturing both a question from Russert and Libby's answer to this question in his testimony to the GJ. It could be perjury to invent a question that was never asked and then give his answer to that question. We'll have to see what evidence Fitzgerald has to support the charges. The evidence had better be more than the testimony of a couple of media jackels.

[conservative in nyc]

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Statements (a) and (b) are not inconsistent. Assuming the prosecutor can prove it (a big assumption), they are two alternative reasons Libby's statement about learning about Plame from Russert is false: (a) Russert says otherwise (admittedly a weak he-said, she-said argument - but if true, Libby's whole statement to the grand jury is false) and/or (b) Libby knew about Plame's identity before speaking to Russert (this is based on factual evidence - faxes and the statements of others in the administration - and if true, his statement that he didn't recall he had known about Ms. Plame's CIA status when speaking to Russert is false).

I'm not saying these charges will stick. But they are serious.

[cgbg]

Libby needs a blood and guts street-fighting criminal defense attorney.

If it were me I wouldn't hire this guy--he is too blueblood. Antitrust--cut me a break!

[USS Alaska]

Title 18, section 793 is the section under which the indictment is handed down. Perjury, and obstruction are sub-sections under 793 {in this case}. This is the section of the law is being used, it is in the indictment. There can't be obstruction of justice if there has been no crime. Since they couldn't use the statute {for outing a covert agent}, they used this law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html