Posted on 02/11/2006 6:58:42 PM PST by Jean S
Let’s say you’re a federal prosecutor.
You’re investigating officials in the Bush White House, trying to find out whether they violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act when they told reporters that Valerie Wilson, wife of the ardent Bush critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.
Violations of those laws would be a very serious matter indeed. And just to make your investigation a high-pressure affair, you’re dealing with some very prominent figures, including Lewis Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff, and Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser.
Then you run into a problem. You look and look, but you can’t find enough evidence to charge either man — or anyone else — with breaking the two big national-security laws.
But you believe you have a good case that Libby lied to your grand jury. So after more than two years of probing, you charge him with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements.
So here’s the question: In preparation for trial, Libby’s defense lawyers want you to give them evidence that when you began the investigation you had a good reason to believe that a crime had been committed — that is, that someone had violated the intelligence identities law or the Espionage Act. Do you give it to them?
First, they want you to turn over documents showing that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent for the CIA at the time she was outed in Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003.
Then they want the documents showing that Mrs. Wilson had been covert at some point in the five years before she was mentioned in the Novak column — a key requirement for prosecution under the intelligence identities law.
And then they want documents outlining the damage Mrs. Wilson’s unmasking has done to national security.
At least to an outsider, those might seem like reasonable requests. After all, that’s why you started your investigation, wasn’t it?
So what do you say?
Fuhggedaboudit.
The following is from recent correspondence between CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the Libby defense team:
On Dec. 14, 2005, Libby’s lawyers 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.”
To which Fitzgerald replied, on Jan. 9, “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.’”
Then the Libby lawyers asked for “any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee.”
To which Fitzgerald replied, also on Jan. 9, “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.” And by the way, Fitzgerald added, we wouldn’t view that information as relevant to your case, so you can forget about getting it.
About the issue of whether Mrs. Wilson had been undercover in the five years before the Novak article, Fitzgerald said, in effect, we might have some proof of that — or we might not. You don’t need to know.
In each instance, Fitzgerald told the Libby lawyers that their requests for information on any underlying crime were irrelevant because Libby is charged with lying under oath, not with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act.
Well, yes, but that’s not the whole story, say Libby’s attorneys. Just look, for example, at the question of damage to national security.
“Potential harm to national security was a focus of the government’s investigation,” Libby’s team wrote in a Jan. 31 brief. “In fact, the indictment alleges that disclosure of the fact that individuals such as Ms. Wilson ‘were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security.’”
The Libby team went on to point out that in his news conference last October, Fitzgerald said the leak of Mrs. Wilson’s name was not only harmful, that “the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.”
But now, Fitzgerald maintains that the most fundamental information in the case — was an underlying crime actually committed? — is not important.
Maybe he’s on solid legal grounds. Maybe not. We’ll find out later this month, when the issue is argued in court.
But for those of us outside the courtroom, for those of us who have been told for years that the leak of Valerie Wilson’s name was a very serious crime, wouldn’t it be a good thing to know whether or not that was true?
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com
That is also why in civil trials, answers are usually prefaced with "as I recall".
You are required to answer to your best recollection, not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
It is to be the truth as you remember it.
Thanks Howlin for the pingies.
It certainly is interesting that Fitzgerald seems to have admitted that he did not do the requisite investigation into Plame's employment status. If I remember correctly, Fitzgerald's original mandate was to investigate precisely that thing (as well as whether the IIPA was violated, or other unauthorized disclosures of confidential material were made), and within a few months after his investigation began, he went to the Federal judge overseeing his investigation and asked for permission to expand the scope to cover perjury and obstruction that may have occurred during his investigation. In making that request, Fitzgerald evidently made representations to the judge that national security was involved, and based on those representations, the judge expanded the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation. So, it is entirely likely that Fitzgerald committed a fraud upon the court by making such a claim when he had evidently not even investigated Plame's employment status - which means that Fitzgerald could be in a ton of legal hot water himself. My (purely speculative) guess is that Libby's attorneys may be going after that angle.
How is Libby's lawyer supposed to mount a defense when Fitz won't give him the information he needs?
I'd change your "when" to an "if," and in the event that Fitz fails to turn over Brady (exculpatory) material, Fitz will lose.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1575259/posts?page=128#128
Mr. Fitzgerald has found nothing to support the claims that Libby lied to cover for exposing Plame to the public for political gain.
This man just did the finest job of any lawyer I have seen, spending the necessary time to get the info, let the press back off, and pursue injustice in the public's interest.
He found THERE WAS NONE. President Bush had no trouble picking the best man, the most diligent and successful at this type of prosecution, to do the finding. And to return the results no matter which way the dominoes fell.
Because we all knew, it just wasn't 'there'.
Please. Have patience.
The Dems claim there is a crime.
The President is taking the responsbility to have justice pursue the issue.
Now, when it is proven there was no crime in exposing a non-spy, do you think all that effort might have been to hide a much larger and more innocuous crime?
What does the company that Joe Wilson owns, that was in Niger and he was flying down to speak for, do?
Many thanks for the ping! :-)
Is it just me or is it sounding like not only did Fitzgerald not find anything, he didn't really honestly ATTEMPT to find anything.
York makes it sound like he spent a long darn time, took up a lot of important people's time, and spent whole lot of money when this could have been resolved towards the beginning by requesting a couple of documents to see if it was even possible for a crime to have been commited.
Am I missing something here?
When Rush mentioned this not too long ago, I thought it was said tongue in cheek as I clearly heard Fitzgerald explain the gravity of what had been done to poor Mrs. Wilson and all those who work for the CIA. Why aren't members of congress out there crying foul as they, quite effectively, did against Judge Starr during impeachment?
I renew my question. Is it just me or did this guy just spend several years, several million dollars, and suck up time of half of the Bush administration when this could have been resolved by requesting a little paperwork?
Please tell me I'm missing something.
In order for Libby to bes guilty of perjury, or anything else he is now being charged with, Fitz MUST prove that he lied to those he claimed he lied to and obstructed justice. But...don't forget that Miller was thrown into jail, NOT so much because she refused to "peach" on Libby, but because she also refused to talk about another case as well. Shes just refused to talk about ANYTHING!
She was thrown into jail, Fitz finally made a deal with her...her playing nicey nicey on the Libby thing, for her being allowed to NOT have to talk about what else Fitz wanted her on.
Is that collusion? Can it be used to refute a "he said/she said" kind of perjury case? I don't know. What I do know, is that Fitz ran this investigation worse than anyone could have imagined and that there really are enough holes in it, that he needs to worry about his reputation.
Spot on! :-)
Precisely what the dems were asking during impeachment and precisely what the pubbies in congress should be asking now! All we've heard from the MSM is how thorough this guy is and now that we've learn otherwise, not a peep.
I will be calling my representative in congress first thing Monday. Might even call Schumer and Clinton to let them know we're paying attention.
This is absolutely kafkaesque! If there is any justice the courts should make Fitzgerald comply with discovery or, better yet, throw the case out.
Isn't it though? We have a prosecutor, wielding all of the power of the DOJ, going after the White House, with all of the political implications, during a time of war and he's not sure if a crime was committed? Kafkaesque is a good description.
Did you see this?
IIRC: Woodward said that he may have told Libby about Plame. I think "Reporters" knew from other sources about Plame before Novak and Libby as early as June of '93.
“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.’”
Them is legal weasel words, of course he does not have or requested "all". But does he have any?
And FYI...during this whole Libby/Palme thing, Fitz was busy working on cases in Chicago and was NOT paying much attention, at all, to this one. But, when push came to shove, he indicted a ham sandwich, is all.
Of course there was perjury (way more clumsy than what Libby is accused of). Clinton was impeached for it and lost his law license for a while.
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.