Posted on 11/17/2005 5:10:51 AM PST by veronica
November 17, 2005 -- CALL it "Deep Throat 2." The CIA-leak probe is in big trouble because superstar reporter and Watergate hero Bob Woodward has emerged as a surprise witness for the defense — potentially undermining the case against ex-White House aide Scooter Libby.
Woodward yesterday revealed that he's told prosecutors he could be the first reporter to learn from a Bush administration source that Iraq war critic Joe Wilson's wife worked as a CIA analyst — but Libby wasn't his new "Deep Throat."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Assuming you aren't living under a bridge, you should know by now that Bush/Rove are masters of political Judo. Patience is required.
Fitz was charged with investigating whether or not there was a violation of 50 USC 421 or 18 USC 793. I don't believe the evidence supports a conclusion that there wasa violation of either; which put me, Toensing and DiGenova in agreement.
If there is no crime, how is Libby's testimony material?
The testimony is material in that it goes to one of the elements of the aforementioned statutes. As to 50 USC 412, the element that fails in "covert," as Plame was not, and as to 18 USC 793, there are numerous missing elements.
If it is not material, how is it perjury?
The testimony is material in that it goes to the element of whether or not a government agent disclosed Plame's identity.
can you name some other instances where someone had been indicted for perjury for similar non-material testimony?
Martha Stewert. I could find others, I'm sure, with research.
Lastly, why is this so important to you?
It's not important, I just find it interesting.
Do you think you have a higher regard for the rule of law than say, Joe DiGenova?
No.
I suspect the notes came from others in the VP's office, turned over to WH counsel in response to orders from Gonzales, and forwarded to DoJ and independent counsel.
Novak said we would "laugh" when we learned of his source......
When will that be?
"Martha Stewert. I could find others, I'm sure, with research."
Wrong. There was a crime committed. MS wasn't convicted, but her partner was. Her testimony was material.
For the nth time, Libby's testimony was not material. It was not necessary one way or the other, for Fitzgerald to learn there was no crime.
Whether Libby had or had not leaked her name--and whether he lied about it -- is all completely irrelevant as to whether a crime occurred.
No crime occurred because Plame's identity was not protected by any law. You even agree to this.
So you must perforce agree that Libby's crime was not material to any underlying crime. So it should not be prosecuted.
This is what Joe DiGenova says. This is what the Washington Times editorial has said.
I didn't realize the SEC complaint proper (against MS & Bacanovic) had been concluded. Agreed that the charge of false statement was valid, and she was convicted for that.
I suppose a better example would be Bill Clinton for his false statements under oath in the Paula Jones civil case, which was settled/dismissed.
For the nth time, Libby's testimony was not material. It was not necessary one way or the other, for Fitzgerald to learn there was no crime.
Your test of materiality is tempting, but incorrect. Your conclusion is based on the fact that Plame was not covert, therefore the entire investigation was bogus. That defense was raised, albeit too late in the game, by Miller & Cooper in the amicus brief arguing for rehearing en banc before the US Circuit Court of Appeals. The Courts have not addressed that argument.
Whether Libby had or had not leaked her name--and whether he lied about it -- is all completely irrelevant as to whether a crime occurred.
The test of materiality is not "whether or not a crime occurred." In the instant case, the independent counsel was charged with fining out exactly that, and we agree, would have concluded "no crime." That does not excuse lying to the investigators. In the alternative, a person called to testify could assert what you do here, in lieu of testifying.
This is what Joe DiGenova says.
He said otherwise regarding Bill Clinton's perjury.
On May 21, 2004, federal prosecutors charged a Secret Service special agent with perjury for allegedly lying in the trial of Martha Stewart and her broker, Peter Bacanovic.In this instance, the government witness, Larry Stewart, was accused of testifying falsely that he had personally examined Martha Stewart's broker's worksheet before he testified about the ink. Had he been convicted, Larry Stewart could have faced a maximum sentence under federal law on each perjury count of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine per criminal count. However, a federal jury in Manhattan found him not guilty on October 5, 2004.
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/043/lying.html
To state that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States has obstructed justice or committed perjury is to define the seriousness of the crime. Such seriousness is not lost because it was a civil proceeding or later dismissed by the trial court.http://www.digenovatoensing.com/inthenews/robert_ray_0101.htm
The main policy in this case is that courts very much do not want people to tell deliberate lies on the witness stand and, in general, take the view that defects in the steps that may bring witnesses to the stand are not adequate reason for tolerating the lies and foregoing punishment. A number of Supreme Court decisions reflect this general policy.Thus, in Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966), convictions for filing false non-Communist affidavits were sustained, the Court holding that it did not matter whether the underlying statute that required them violated the First Amendment. Id. at 867; see also Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64, 72 (1969). Similarly, in United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576, 584 (1976), and United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 176-78 (1977), the respective failures to give a grand jury witness a Miranda warning (in one case) or a warning as to the privilege against self-incrimination (in the other) were held not to excuse the subsequent perjury of the witness. Other cases are to the same effect.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=022276
This is what Joe DiGenova says.
Toensing and DiGenova assert that the entire investigation was bogus, because Plame obviously did not satisfy the "covert" requirement embodied in 50 USC 421. I agree with them in that regard, but given an ongoing investigation, a belief there was no crime does not create immunity from prosecution for false statements.
DiGenova says perhaps Libby's best defense will be the simplest defense, that he had no intention of lying.http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_usa102905b.htm
DIGENOVA: Well, first of all, I don't agree with some of these Republican folks who have been on television saying perjury is not sufficient here. If he can prove real perjury and an effort to mislead the grand jury, then he should bring indictments. And if that's all he brings, that's still legitimate and worthwhile and, in my opinion, would be worth bringing.If he uses the espionage statute, I will be extremely surprised. Because, as you know, that statute was passed in 1917. It's designed to deal with the disclosure of national defense information. And it was in existence in 1982, when the Congress enacted the Agent Identities Protection Act because the Justice Department said that the espionage act does not apply to the identity of a covert agent.
So, if he's using that act, that will be a somewhat dubious use of criminal law. But on the obstruction side, if anybody lied to the grand jury, no matter who they are, or misled people or purposely tried to influence other witnesses, they should be charged. And, of course, whether or not they're guilty will be determined by a trial.
Doubtful. NOC is the deepest cover that CIA creates. The appearance of a NOC is "no connection with CIA." Plame was publicly a WMD analyst for CIA, therefore was not NOC.
Whether exposing a NOC is against the law or not, I do not know.
It is. Criminalizing the exposure of NOCs was the purpose of 50 USC 421 et seq.
... why would the Justice Department assign a special prosecutor to the case?
This case was coughed up by DoJ to an independent counsel based on political pressure from the DEMs. If Libby hadn't given Fitz a bone to chew on, the referral would be dead, today.
She was charged.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18169.htm
"I suppose a better example would be Bill Clinton for his false statements under oath in the Paula Jones civil case, which was settled/dismissed."
Wrong again.
There was a crime, or the real possibility of a crime. Clinton in effect admitted to his guilt by settling.
"Your test of materiality is tempting, but incorrect. Your conclusion is based on the fact that Plame was not covert, therefore the entire investigation was bogus. That defense was raised, albeit too late in the game, by Miller & Cooper in the amicus brief arguing for rehearing en banc before the US Circuit Court of Appeals."
I don't think you understand how Grand Juries work. There was no defense.
The brief offered by the media was completely apart.
There was a crime, or the real possibility of a crime. Clinton in effect admitted to his guilt by settling.
No crime. It was a civil case, and the case was dropped by the plaintiff. Given thatteh case was dropped, a finding of liability became impossible.
How about the criminal case where the statute was found unconstitutional? There can't be a conviction against a void statute - yet perjury stood.
Or do you think lying to investigators is okay? DiGenova doesn't think so, not even in the Libby case.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623 Prev | Next
§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
Release date: 2005-08-03
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false ***material*** declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false ***material*** declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://tinyurl.com/97g9g
If there is no crime and no possibilty of uncovering a crime, than the testimony is immaterial.
You are trying to make this more complicated that it is.
And, lest we forget, prosecution in cases like this is up to the discretion of the prosecutor. It is selective prosecution to indict for something like this.
Even you cannot come up with a similar instance. There are none.
It's worse.
You should have put in that there was in fact no bank robbed.
I remember Matthews saying about 1 year ago, "Anyone who ratted out Plame and is letting Miller stew in jail is not a nice person", or something like that. Mr.Woodward has had this information for longer than anyone in the line of knowlege of who Plame was....and Chris Matthews is treating Woodward like a saint. These newpeople are vacuous.
" There was a crime, or the real possibility of a crime. Clinton in effect admitted to his guilt by settling.
No crime. It was a civil case, and the case was dropped by the plaintiff. Given thatteh case was dropped, a finding of liability became impossible."
You are either being sophistic or you really don't understand the law.
Clinton was under oath in a legal proceeding before a judge. It doesn't matter if it is civil or not.
And the case was not dropped--it was settled, with Clinton paying large damages.
Sheesh.
Let's say you are charged with robbing a bank - you didn't do it, but you are accused anyway (in fact no bank was ever robbed). As part of the case, you give the alibi that you were at the Quickie-Mart getting a Squishy, but the security camera clearly finds that you poured yourself a cup of coffee - it was three years ago and you weren't sure. You are immediately charged with lying, but not charged with robbing the bank. That's pretty much the case.
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.