Music to my ears .. this is the road to the highway, where the rubber meets the road ... go get 'em, Scooter!
Posted on 02/01/2006 8:25:40 AM PST by frankjr
Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff urged a court yesterday to force a prosecutor to turn over CIA records indicating whether former CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment was classified, saying the answer is not yet clear.
The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations.
Defense lawyers argued in court papers that it is crucial to determine whether Plame was not an undercover operative at the time Libby was discussing her with members of the media, and whether little or no damage was done to national security when her identity was publicly disclosed.
If either is true, the defense argued, it will "challenge the prosecution's contention that Mr. Libby has reason to lie to the FBI and the grand jury about his conversations with reporters in July 2003."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
" But lying to investigators isn't excused on account of the investigation being bogus."
Agreed. Now it's up to Fitz to prove perjury vs. the defense pushing faulty memory. If Fitz plans on relying on the testimony and notes of any reporters he is in for a rough case...especially with a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' hurdle.
What do you think is up with Rove's status in this investigation? No new news/leaks in quite some time.
I'm still trying to figure out why this guy or anyone should get prosecuted for having a bad memory?
It's not like he stole and destroyed top secret documents implicating an ex-president's culpability in 9/11?
I hope they get enough information made public to show that she was just a disgruntled civil servant and her husband was a reckless unemployed jerk.
Fitzgerald asked for this, now he has to deal with it.
Tradesports has the odds of him being charged by March 31 at 16 percent last time I looked.
As between Libby and reporters? Not really. The indictment depends on and is driven by Libby having knowledge of Plame independently from conversations with reporters.
The "faulty memory" problem that gets Libby off the charge would be the memory of investigators. Libby might assert that teh investigators forgot or withheld that Libby DID tell them that he (Libby) checked Plame's status at CIA.
But his direct testimony (in the indictlment) leads away from asserting that fact.
Investigators have independent evidence that Libby checked with CIA. That is, independent of conversations with reporters.
I would not place a big wager on his conviction.
I give it better than even odds -if- the case goes to trial. I don't see the charge being dropped, but a plea bargain is possible.
No. That is true of the counts respecting Russert, but not the counts involving Miller and Cooper. As to the odds, ruch to Tradesports and place your money. Last I checked the odds were at 48%.(Odds of Rove indictment by March 31 were 16%).
Oh, yeah. Libby is going to prove we were all lied to over and over again by MSM, prosecutor, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame (big surprise - NOT!), liberal kooks/politicians, former CIA lunatics, etc.
I just have a feeling he is going to determined to clear his name completely, so I don't think he's going to make ANY kind of deal.
Without returning to a detailed review, I can't say you are incorrect on that. But the general point I have been trying to make is to show that the indictment does NOT reduce to a "reporter said - Libby said" dispute, or to a question of "who knew first, Libby or some reporter(s)?"
The indictment asks this. At the time in interest, was Libby "informed only as well as every other guy in the rumor mill," or was he "well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?"
The core charge of the indictment is that Libby tried to lead investigators to the conclusion that he was just another guy in the rumor mill.
The charge of Libby hiding his actual awareness from investigators is the same whether or not Plame worked for the CIA. It is the same if reporters knew Plame worked for the CIA before Libby did. The charge in the indictment remains if Plame is covert or if she is not. The charge in the indictment remains if the reporters knew of Plame before Libby did, even if every reporter in town knew before Libby did.
The charge is that Libby withheld his "actual awareness" in testimony to investigators.
33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that: ...At the time of this conversation [Russert], LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions: ...
[list of June contacts with VP, CIA, State Dept. deleted]
Count 2
4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it [to agents of the FBI], this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003: ...
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA
Count 4
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony [to the grand jury], it was false in that: ...
b. At the time of this conversation [with Russert], LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA
Count 5
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true.
Count 3 involves the conversation with Cooper, and the language of the indictment is ambiguous. It could wash out as a non-count, or it could be the same "lie" described in the counts above.
... in response to questions posed to him by agents of the FBI, [Libby] stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper ... that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
The ambiguity is in the direction of the indictment's phrase "but LIBBY did not know if this was true," where the word "this" represents the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
One resolution of the ambiguity is that Libby testified to investigators that he told Cooper that he didn't know if it was true that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lying to Cooper is legal.
The other resolution is that Libby testified to investigators that at the time of the conversation with Cooper, he personally and in fact didn't know if it was true that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lying to investigators is not legal.
Comparing Libby's and Cooper's recollection, Libby comes off as just another person in the rumor mill no matter which of those two is taken as true. Either way, the investigator would conclude that Libby was not well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Libby: I told Cooper that we were hearing from other reporters that Wilson's wife works at the CIA from other reporters, but that I didn't know it that's true. Cooper: I asked if he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and Libby said he had heard that.
If the disclosure of Plame's name did not violate the IIPA because, for example, she wasn't a NOC (something Fitz knew early on) he should have said so and closed down the investigation. In correspondence with Libby's lawyers he has not provided proof that she was. He has conceded that the following reporters knew of her employment at the CIA before July 14, 2003:Woodward,Miller, Novak, Cooper and Pincus BTW. (I'm positive there are more including Andrea Mitchell) so his claim in the indictment that this was unknown outside the intelligence community is false.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the question of perjury traps, prosecutorial misconduct. Nevertheless, I think the ONLY reason the obstruction charge is in the indictment is to hide the fact that the ONLY reason for continuing the investigation after it was clear the jurisdictional predicate was missing is precisely to TRAP witnesses into contradicting eachother or themselves in lengthy testimony over a period of time.
What important investigation was being obstructed? Nothing he could have said would have possibly led to evidence that would have made prosecution under the IIPA possible.
I heard on that very reliable news source, Randi Rhodes show, that an assessment had been completed and they have positively identified operatives that have been killed due to Plame's identity being divulged!! Wackos, every one of them.
That's a completely separate argument from what appears in the indictment.
In correspondence with Libby's lawyers he has not provided proof that she was.
That's because the indictment isn't a "leak" indictment. There is no requirement to prove or even provide evidence of the underlying cause, in order to prosecute false statement, perjury or obstruction.
Fitz doesn't have to address the question "was she covert" in order to prosecute (to use shorthand) perjury.
his claim in the indictment that this was unknown outside the intelligence community is false.
The official stance from President Bush, the DoJ and the prosecutor is that the case, the leak, is serious! Sacre Bleu! There has to be some pretense of secrecy to support the indictment. It wouldn't do, to use an extreme example, to assert that "nobody knows Bret Farve is the QB for the GB Packers" and we are investigating the leak. But even if the investigation is bogus, those who testify are (I think reasonably) expected to do so truthfully.
What would the harm be if Libby had told investigators about his contact with CIA, and that he knew Plame's status for a fact? The testimony is secret.
I think the ONLY reason the obstruction charge is in the indictment is to hide the fact that the ONLY reason for continuing the investigation after it was clear the jurisdictional predicate was missing is precisely to TRAP witnesses into contradicting each other or themselves in lengthy testimony over a period of time.
The question is, "did you know of Plame's status outside the rumor mill?" Libby said "No," in so many words, and only a few months after he'd contacted the CIA.
Did he lie? or did he forget? That's what the jury will be tackling.
What important investigation was being obstructed?
None. As you note, there is no indictment, and never will be one that charges "outing" of Plame.
Thanks for the venue that prompted me to prepare yet another rephrasing of the indictment. The legal principle being defended is "truthful testimony, regardless of the stupidity and/or motive of the investigator."
Exactly! Game,Set,Match!
Well, I have explained my take on it as clearly as I can. I respect that you take another position, but I find it untenable..
Like I said, thanks for the venue.
The record will speak for itself.
We've had a rather complex dialog, and your "I find untenable that you take another position" is ambiguous. My positions, stated on this thread, amount to the following:
Even if the investigation is bogus, those who testify are (I think reasonably) expected to do so truthfully.And you find those positions to be untenable?The legal principle being defended is "truthful testimony, regardless of the stupidity and/or motive of the investigator."
The indictment asks this. At the time in interest, was Libby "informed only as well as every other guy in the rumor mill," or was he "well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?"
... the indictment isn't a "leak" indictment.
There is no indictment, and never will be one that charges "outing" of Plame.
The official stance from President Bush, the DoJ and the prosecutor is that the case, the leak, is serious.
I give the case for conviction better than even odds -if- the case goes to trial.
I don't see the charge being dropped, but a plea bargain is possible.I think it was a bogus investigation.
Simply and breifly--(a) To constitute perjury, the question wmust be material, deliberately false and before a competent tribunal. I have probelms with 2 out of 3 of these.
(b)To find obstruction, you must show that the defendant delibereatley impeded a material line of inquiry. On this I find the indictment lacking two out of two,
(c) If I am wrong, and the lines of inquiry are material and proper, I find it at least as likely that the reporters recollections are wrong as that Libby was deliberately lying and therefore I think the requisite standard--proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be established.
Libby's lawyers should also zero in (I expect they are doing so if legally feasible) on Joe Wilson's interactions with the NY Slimes editors, WaPo morons, etc. in the 2-3 months BEFORE Novak's column. We all know that Joe was chatting up Kristof at least as early as May 3, 2003 and it has been indicated that Valerie Pflame was present at that breakfast and at the "Senate Democratic Policy Council" meetings around May 2. Libby's lawyers should insist upon deposing Kristof, all relevant NY Slimes and WaPo editors, and anyone else who may have been told by Joe before mid-July 2003 anything at all about Valerie's role at the CIA.
Music to my ears .. this is the road to the highway, where the rubber meets the road ... go get 'em, Scooter!
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.