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.
I don't know what duties and obligations Fitzgerald had in confirming Plame's status, however, to charge anyone with leaking her name, he would have had to confirm that the leaker knew her status. Could this be why Libby wasn't charged with the alleged underlying crime (he didn't know her status)?
Okay Flip, let me get this straight. I am slow.
During his press marathon, Fitz said his job was not to see if a crime was committed, but to search for the truth (or facts, whatever).
This article backs up that statement as he seems say he did not investigate the crime per se (outing a covert agent) and in fact, never ascertained whether or not a crime took place.
Given the number of witnesses with foggy memories, the odds are in Fitz's favor that he would have someone to charge with at least perjury when the day was done.
He wasted millions of dollars, looking for "facts" instead of investigating the original crime and nailed the one and only person whose memory may have been faulty?
Now he is telling the defense lawyers no aspect of the original crime is relevant?
What a setup! He gets paid for this scam? By the government? In my next life, I am going to be a SP. What a gravy train.
I wonder if he has been up against Scooter's lawyer before? Maybe he will be chewed up, spit out & thrown down the disposal when this is over.
Has Joe Wilson been seen lately? Wonder if he is a little nervous?
We can discuss Libby's prosecution, but this is pretty clearly cause to fire Fitzgerald. He was given a task, and made no attempt to nail down its predicates.
A total disingenuous statement. Perjury to a Grand Jury has to be material to a crime. No crime ... No perjury.
After all, the point of prosecutions is to bring criminal charges.
How does a prosecutor know what charges to file unless he first knows what crime has been committed, if any? How can he determine whom to charge? Not only whom to charge, but what charges to file?
What's he gonna do? Walk into a court of law and say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I don't know if a crime was committed, but I want you to convict this feller over here anyway." To me, that would be the very definition of a malicious prosecution.
By his own admission, Fitzgerald did not determine if leaking her name was a crime. He didn't do the most basic and important part of his job, but he futzed and fuddled around for two years until he managed to find a way to bring perjury charges against Libby. That stinks to high heaven.
I agree, but these special counsels/prosecutors don't appear to be supervised by anyone.
The one good thing about all this is that Libby is not going down without a fight and his lawyers are being very, very aggressive in his defense.
I don't know, ask Martha Stewart.
And during your Press Conference announcing the indictments , you elaborated to this,... when....??
HOMEY DON'T THINK SO, DUDE...TRY AGAIN..
We sure have, and as usual, we taxpayers can do little about it.
Clinton/Clinton/Gore had over 13,000,000 emails deleted.
(The press yawned.)
Fitz can't even say IF these (hundred/dozen/ten/two ?) emails were deleted at all.
just a thought. in any event, with cheney i would think it is very possible if there are deleted emails, they might possibly deal with something important to national interests/security that subsequently needed to unoccur, rather than CYA from an independent counsel.
That's the whole conundrum in this case, Dolphy. To this day we, the taxpayers footing the bill for this charade, still don't know if a crime was committed when Noval revealed Plame's name. As so many others have said, if there was no crime, then there can be no perjury. Perjury has to be material to the underlying crime.
In that case, what she was being accused of was a crime, the question was if she did it, and her misleading answers obscured that. In this case, the prosecutor appears to have not attempted to determine if what was being asserted was even potentially a crime, and Libby's answers were not relevant to that determination.
There is a semantic difference here: The difference between there an act being not criminal even if what was being asserted was true; and there being no commission of a crime.
Can someone tell me how any court will allow this case to proceed when the prosecutor refuses to give the defendent information pertaining to the case against him and then says he doesn't even know if there was any harm done by the so-called leak? -- okay, I know it's a DC court, but still!
What Is Fitzgerald Up To? (Mark Levin)
(snip)
I must say that this confirms my worst fears. At his October 28, 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald said, in part:
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. ...
At the time, I was stunned by this utterly irresponsible statement because it had absolutely nothing to do with the charges brought against Libby. Here's some of what I said on the Corner:
What I resent about this press conference is the effort by Fitzgerald to paint Lewis Libby as outing a cover CIA operative, jeopardize national security, and harm CIA recruitment. As many times as I have now read this indictment, I see obstruction, perjury and false statements. I see no charges relating to any of this rhetoric. And so we now have some news reports claiming that Libby outed a CIA agent when, in fact, as a matter of law, he's not even charged with that. As for the recitation of facts in the indictment, they will now be put to the test by defense counsel, who will have an opportunity to question the government's witnesses (including Miller and Cooper), talk to their own witnesses, and conduct other discovery. People need to understand that this is just the first salvo. ...
Later I added:
Now, as for Plame being classified, I have read the indictment several times, and other than Fitzgerald's assertion, the fact is that we have nothing but an assertion. What exactly is her classification, and is it in fact classified? Of course the relevance of this will be explored by defense counsel, and this will be put to the test if necessary. ...
Finally, you bet Fitzgerald smeared Libby during his press conference. All the talk about violations of national security, outing a CIA official, and harming CIA recruitment was nothing more than a well-rehearsed public relations speech intended to paint these indictments as something more than they are (albeit serious in their own right). And that is why, I believe, we have strained efforts now to accuse Libby of passing classified information without the benefit of an actual charge.
And now, in his formal responses to Libby's counsel, Fitzgerald himself disputes and rejects his own very public comments about Libby and the significance of his case. Fitzgerald now admits no assessment of any purported harm by Libby was undertaken, meaning his rhetoric at the press conference was without any basis on this point. Indeed, he now argues that an assessment wasn’t even relevant to the charges. I find this utterly irresponsible. And as to the all important question of whether Plame’s “undercover” or otherwise “classified” status was leaked by Libby or anyone else, Fitzgerald never even sought documentary evidence (at least for the relevant time period) to make a determination.
So: What the heck is this investigation all about?
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
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.