Posted on 02/02/2006 11:32:04 AM PST by hipaatwo
The CIA leak prosecutor refuses to turn over evidence to Lewis Libby.
Watchers of the CIA leak investigation are buzzing over a series of letters between prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and lawyers for former Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In the letters, contained in motions filed recently by Libby's defense team and released by the court, Fitzgerald steadfastly refused to reveal whether he has any evidence that Bush administration officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or any other law by revealing the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson.
Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in the leak investigation, but Fitzgerald has so far not alleged that anyone acted illegally by revealing Wilson's identity. In the letters, which give outsiders a glimpse of the intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on in the case, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to turn over evidence that might point toward such an underlying crime. Fitzgerald refused.
In a December 14, 2005, letter to Fitzgerald, Libby's lawyers asked for "Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee." In the same letter, Libby's team asked for "All documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." (Those dates mark the period in which some Bush-administration officials discussed Wilson with reporters.)
Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false."
On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'" Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution.
In a later letter, dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald went further, refusing to provide information about whether Wilson was an undercover agent during the last five years. Referring to a 1963 Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might point toward the defendant's innocence, Fitzgerald wrote, "We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information."
Fitzgerald's January 23 letter also referred to a conflict between the two sides over the actions of Valerie Wilson's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. "You demand access to all documents referencing Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip to Iraq," Fitzgerald wrote to Libby's lawyers in what is apparently a mistaken reference to Joseph Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger that became the focus of contention after his wife's CIA employment was made public. Prosecutors will not turn it over, Fitzgerald wrote. "The relevance of Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip is the fact that it occurred and that it became a subject of discussion in spring 2003. What took place during that trip is not relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Libby lied about his spring 2003 conversations with various reporters and government officials about Mr. Wilson's wife's employment at the Central Intelligence Agency."
Still, Fitzgerald wrote that his office will turn over "all documents in our possession reflecting conversations involving defendant Libby about Wilson's trip, or meetings Mr. Libby attended during which Mr. Wilson's trip was discussed." Fitzgerald also wrote that he does not expect to call Wilson to testify at the Libby trial.
So far, there has been little attention paid to Fitzgerald's statements on the possibility of underlying crimes in the CIA leak case. Instead, much attention has focused on a paragraph at the end of Fitzgerald's January 23 letter in which Fitzgerald wrote that "We have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." That statement has fueled much speculation on left-wing blogs that some sort of cover-up has taken place and that the White House has destroyed evidence in the leak investigation. In all the documents made public so far, however, Fitzgerald has not suggested that that has happened.
Who's on first? I don't know...Third Base!
I also think he threw in that gratuitous reference about emails being lost or destroyed precisely to get the subject changed in the media from his own incompetence to a White House "coverup." He can lay low and keep drawing a paycheck while the White House tries to handle a sh*tstorm about destruction of evidence. And any potential jury will be poisoned against Libby and the White House.
This case fell apart, will Fitzgerald admit it ? Not likely.
FITZGERALD: We have neither sought, much less obtained, all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.
The only reason the "leak" of her name was investigated at all was because her CIA employment status was supposedly classified.
FITZGERALD: You [Libby's lawyers] demand access to all documents referencing Mr. Wilson's 2002 trip to Iraq.
Wilson's trip to NIGER, not Iraq, is central to the whole case. It's the story reporters were interested in, and the reason they wanted to discuss it with Libby, Rove and other WH officials. It's the reason Novak wrote his column, which triggered the investigation. Yet Fitzgerald doesn't even get the country right two-plus years into his investigation?!
FITZGERALD: A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee.
By his own admission, then, Fitzgerald didn't bother to find out if there was even a crime committed as regards the "leak" of her name, so he justifies the waste of taxpayer dollars over more than two years by trumping up perjury charges against Libby.
THIS is the prosecutor so many people, including many FReepers, assured us was squeeky clean, dedicated, honest, excellent, etc.? From the above-quoted court documents, it seems Patrick Fitzgerald ignored all the central facts of the case he was employed to investigate. Un-frickin-believable!
At this point, Fitztgerald is the one who ought to be investigated.
My exact thought!!! Fitzgerald was charged with determining if a crime was committed: the leak of classified information to damage a CIA agent and/or her husband in retaliation and all that goes with that.
The only way to prove the above is to determine the status of Plame. From what this says, he is not just saying that the information about Plame's status is not relevant...he's saying he doesn't KNOW her status. How could Fitzgerald NOT know if a crime was committed if he cannot say whether or not Plame was undercover at the time. That's an integral part of the legislation. He decided to NOT charge LIbby with the crime of leaking classified information...why not? That was obviously the charge they were looking into, and Plame's status would have been necessary to determine the charge.
To say that it has no relevance to Libby's perjury is wrong too. The whole point of Libby's "lying" is based on Fitz's belief that Libby THOUGHT or KNEW she was classified and was motivated to lie about his "leaks." In Libby's capacity, perhaps he KNEW that she wasn't classified (and therefore, knew he was in no danger of leaking classified info and therefore no motive to lie)
Excellent points.
Ian't it a judges job to determine if evidence is or is not relevant to a case? Fitzgerald says he doesn't think it's relative so he won't turn anything over.
Well, the next step would be for Libby to go to the judge to compel the release -- the judge would then decide. Usually you work as much out as you can first with the prosecuter, then go to the judge.
Looks like Fitzmas is going to have to change that Pitcher hitting Batter story a bit??? If a Pitcher throws a strike down the middle of the plate, should the Umpire still throw him out???
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Every time I hear this guy's name now, I can't help think of that silly joke about the two gay Irish boys who are a perfect match: Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick (read it out loud).
First, Libby's lawyers hope to show that he had no motive to lie about what he had done because he had not broken the law, and the prosecutor knows this.
Second, I hesitate to draw an analogy between State law in Texas and Federal law, but here goes. It is a crime to, with intent to deceive, knowingly make a false statement that is material a criminal investigation to a peace officer conducting that criminal investigation.
It is no defense to the charge of false report that the final conclusion of the investigation was that there was no crime committed, or that the officer just cannot tell if a crime has been committed.
However, if the peace officer already knows that no crime has been committed, then what ever he was doing was not a criminal investigation, and it would not be a crime to have lied to him.
""We have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."
Replace cheney with gore and people would be howling. The vanished emails may deal with something else entirely though.
BFLR
Your parody is brilliant!
Bump
We all remember how Fitzgerald kept us hanging until the last minute for the results of his investigation. If I were to pay him for his work, he would only get half. And he would have to pay that back in fines from his fraud conviction.
Indeed. What a totally fraudulent effort. Once again, we taxpayers get stuck holding the bag for government nonsense.
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.