Woodward's testimony will be particularly damaging to Fitzgerald's case.
Posted on 02/02/2006 12:31:36 AM PST by STARWISE
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is raising the possibility that records sought in the CIA leak investigation could be missing because of an e-mail archiving problem at the White House.
The prosecutor in the criminal case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff said in a Jan. 23 letter that not all e-mail was archived in 2003, (((GET THIS: ***the year the Bush administration exposed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.***))))
(They aren't even faking journalistic integrity in leaving out the word "allegedly.")
Lawyers for defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the Libby camp says it needs to mount a defense.
"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed," Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to the defense team.
But the prosecutor added: "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." His letter was an exhibit attached to Libby's demand for more information from the prosecution.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, said the vice president's office is cooperating fully with the investigation, and referred questions to Fitzgerald's office.
(snip)
The Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in 1978, made it clear that records generated in the conduct of official duties did not belong to the president or vice president, but were the property of the government.
(SNIP)
"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Woodward's testimony will be particularly damaging to Fitzgerald's case.
*shrug* Did I read it wrong?
That's my take
ping
Because Woodward will testify that he was told about Vallery Plame by someone other than Libby long before anyone discused it by Libby. He may also testify that many other reporter knew about Plame before Libby knew about it. Woodward says he knew. With how many other reporters did woodward discuss it?
Libby says he learned it from the press... That is Russert. Russert says he did not know. Woodward has said all along that there is no case against Libby, Rove or anyone else in the White House and that the case will collapse when it goes to court.
How could Woodward know that? He could know it if he had proof that Russert knew about Plame could prove it. Either Russert or Libby is lying. If Woodward proves Russert is lying then there is big trouble at NBC and no conviction of Libby.
Fake but accurate lies given in testimoney could get Russert indicted.
Fitzgerald continues to flub his dub on this case. He knows he has nothing and "Scooter's' lawyers are going to crucify all of those MSM types who have been living off of those sources who have an ax to grind.
Won't it be fun to see Novak and his junior colleges of D.C. get put on the stand and risk either a jail term or God help us, tell the truth for once.
What a coincidence! Al Gore had the SAME problem, and I think maybe Bill Clinton and his WHOLE staff had the same problem.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
You sure know a lot more about this business than I do. The only problem I see is that Libby might have a hard time now because the absence of archived evidence might be used as "more obstruction" on the part of Libby.
Libby Defense Demands News Media Materials
Fitzgerald was "aggressive" in his indictment of Libby, to put it mildly. A DC lawyer told me in 1999, "Any Special Prosecutor is under enormous pressure to produce an indictment, of.....something."
He also told me Ken Starr was almost the opposite, and he could have "leaned forward" a lot more than he did with indictments. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, now has a situation where he is blocking evidence from news organizations that the defense is requesting to exonerate Libby! Fitzgerald is potentially in a real bind. If the judge rules against him, he will look like a fool.
I don't understand Fitzgerald's response. Libby is asking for documents the government holds and is basing the government case upon, not what might be on WH computers.
...which makes me wonder, why on earth did he convene a new grand jury in the first place?
I've recently lost a year's worth of emails via Outlook .. it's now corrupted and unreliable, and I haven't got a clue why. Every time I open the program, it says "the location for this account has changed." Stuff happens with software, for sure.
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.