Posted on 02/23/2006 7:56:53 AM PST by PJ-Comix
Tomorrow CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and indicted former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby will meet in a Washington courtroom to fight over what evidence will be at the center of Libby's trial on perjury, obstruction, and false statements charges. In the latest exchange of court motions between the two sides, Libby's defense team is repeating its request for evidence concerning perhaps the two most fundamental questions in CIA leak investigation: Was Valerie Wilson a secret CIA officer when her name appeared in Robert Novak's famous July 14, 2003, column, and what damage did the exposure of her identity do to national security? Fitzgerald has so far refused to provide any evidence touching on either question, at times shifting his reasoning as Libby's lawyers pressed their case.
During his October 28, 2005 news conference announcing the Libby indictment, Fitzgerald said flatly, "I will confirm that [Wilson's] association with the CIA was classified" at the time covered by the investigation. The indictment itself says that "Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA and her employment status was classified."
Last December, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to provide "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" in the time period before the Novak column was published. Fitzgerald refused, saying that "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'" during that period.
Later, Libby's team repeated the request. Fitzgerald again refused, saying, in effect, that the information was none of Libby's business:
The defense also seeks all documents "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." Mr. Libby predicates his request on a single reference in the indictment to the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time. The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time — and we do not — we would produce them though not strictly required to under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland. The defense is not entitled to every document mentioning a fact merely because that fact is mentioned in the indictment.
It would perhaps be an understatement to say that Fitzgerald's answer left the Libby team unsatisfied. Now, in a motion filed on Tuesday, Libby is trying one more time:
The government argues that "Ms. Wilson's employment status was either classified or it was not," and states that it if it possessed any documents stating her employment was not classified, it would produce such documents. What Mr. Libby seeks, however, is all documents supporting the indictment’s allegation that her employment was classified, as well as those showing it was not. To date, the defense has not received a single document showing that Ms. Wilson’s employment was classified information. Further, the government has told us that it "neither sought, much less obtained," from the CIA the documents we requested with respect to Ms. Wilson's employment status. This assertion calls into question how the government can represent to the Court that no [relevant] material on this issue exists. [emphasis in the original]
In addition, Libby argued, Fitzgerald's refusal to provide information confirming Wilson's status touches on fundamental questions of fairness:
By refusing to provide any documents confirming the allegation in the indictment that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time period, the government has in effect demanded that the defense concede that this allegation is correct. Such a demand is flatly inconsistent with the basic principles of our criminal justice system. The defense is entitled to investigate this allegation and determine whether any factual support for it exists.
Fitzgerald is also continuing his refusal to provide the Libby defense team with any assessment of the damage done to national security by the exposure of Wilson's identity. Fitzgerald at first refused because, he said, no "formal assessment" of the damage had been done. Later, he argued that he had never claimed any damage had been done:
The defendant also argues that he is entitled to information about any assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s employment because "potential harm to national security was a focus of the government’s investigation." This claim is illogical. First, there were many things that were investigated that are not reflected in the charges in the indictment. The actual — as opposed to potential — damage caused by the outing of Ms. Wilson is not alleged in the indictment, nor was it a focus of the grand jury investigation. The indictment alleges only that the outing of CIA employees could cause damage. The actual damage resulting from uncharged conduct is irrelevant to whether the defendant lied about his conversations with reporters. [emphasis in the original]
In their latest brief, Libby's defense lawyers argue that the question of damage is central to the case, that Fitzgerald himself had said so during his October news conference, and that it is hard to imagine the issue not coming up at trial:
The government argues that evidence concerning whether any damage resulted when Ms. Wilson's identity was "leaked" should not be provided to the defense because a claim of actual damage is not explicitly alleged in the indictment. The defense has every right to anticipate that the government will attempt to portray the disclosure in question as a damaging breach of national security at trial. This expectation is reinforced by the Special Counsel’s statement at his October 28, 2005 press conference that when Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was made public, "the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us."
How do you prove you don't have a wife? Besides smiling.
Fitz is toast
All this from the so-called "Prosecutor's prosecutor"???
The man whose very essence, whose very being, is the Platonic essence itself of "prosecutorial justice" ???
Maybe all those Demmy exhortations (threats?) that one could not POSSIBLY impugn the integrity of this uber-prosecutor, that here was a man above the fray, so to speak, were for a very good reason... that being that he is politically unhinged, pursuing a fantasy crime with evidence that doesnt even rise to the level of "flimsy", and that he is about as impartial and as fair as the cackling hyena known as Mary Mapes.
ping for read at work.
Marion Barry's defense comes to mind. Fitz set me up
More non-findings about Fitz's non-case about the non-story.
Good taxpayer money went for this non-investigation.
Pttui!
Patrick Fitzgerald—A Tale of Two Cases and a Congressman
The general media view of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who has indicted “Scooter” Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements in the Plame leak investigation is that he is an incorruptible “prosecutor’s prosecutor.” A closer look at an earlier communications interception case involving Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) and the Libby case, a curious recommendation for him made by Representative Gerald Nadler (D, NY), and his own background all suggest something far different and more sinister.
I. THE TWO CASES
According to an October 22, 2005 NewsMax article, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/142646.shtml Fitzgerald. was the U.S. Attorney assigned to investigate a communications interception case where operatives of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D, Iowa) arranged secretly to tape a strategy meeting involving Harkin’s Republican opponent, Rep Greg Ganske. Brian Conley, a former aide to Harkin, made the recording while attending the meeting at the request of Rafael Ruthchild, a Harkin operative, and returned the recording and recorder to Ruthchild. When the Ganske campaign learned of this, they complained to Polk County, Iowa Attorney John Sarcone and to Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Conley and Ruthchild both refused to participate in the investigation and Ruthchild resigned from her job with Harkin.
The Federal statute in this case, 18 USC § 2511(1)(a) specifically prohibits any person from intercepting “any wire, oral or electronic communication[.]” This taping of the Ganske meeting appears to have been such an illegal interception. Nevertheless, the noted NewsMax article reported that Fitzgerald, after about a two week investigation, “announced there was no violation of federal law by Harkin’s team.” Fitzgerald apparently did not even interview Harkin, who “staunchly denied he had any prior knowledge of the possibility of a criminal tape plot.”
This starkly contrasts with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of “covert” CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a “covert” CIA agent as an individual whose “identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.]” The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents’ identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done “with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]”
Plame wasn’t a “covert” agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldn’t have been a violation of the Espionage Act because “covert” agents’ identities aren’t covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.
Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation while he dropped the Harkin investigation, in spite of clear appearances that there was an underlying violation. Why??
II. THE CONGRESSMAN
Enter Gerald Nadler (D, NY), a far left Democratic congressman from New York, who distinguished himself with his passionate defense of ex-president Clinton during Clinton’s impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives. Subsequently, Mr. Nadler enthusiastically supported of Hillary Clinton in her run for the NY Senate seat she now holds. He can be anticipated to do his all supporting her in her likely run for the presidency in 2008.
Mr. Nadler has apparently been watching Patrick Fitzgerald’s handling of the Harkin and Plame cases and approved of the way he’s done both or, at least, Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame investigation. Once again our old friend NewsMax has done some worthwhile digging and gone to Mr. Nadler’s website. On October 22, 2005 NewsMax, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/234208.shtml reported that “Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are so pleased with reports that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is about to indict senior White House officials that they want him to lead an impeachment investigation into whether President Bush lied to Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” According to the same report, Nadler has written to the Justice Department and requested it to expand Fitzgerad’s investigation.
All this leads an inquiring mind to ask why Nadler, a strong supporter of Hillary in all her endeavors, is such a strong supporter of Fitzgerald. Is it possible that he knows something about Fitrzgerald, or ethically dubious communications involving Fitzgerald, that have not been publicly disclosed?
Fitzgerald’s background and general present situation suggestion that’s exactly the explanation for Nadler’s view.
Fitzgerald turned 45 on December 22, 2005. He has served a little more than four years as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, having been confirmed on October 24, 2001. Before then his entire career was spent in various positions in the Justice Department, meaning he is now and has always been a man of no more than upper middle class means. His whole career shows that he’s a very ambitious man. According to an August 4, 2005 article in the Chicago Sun-Times http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-fitz04.html US. attorneys normally only serve four year terms, Fitzgerald’s time is up, and there’s “speculation that he’ll be shown the door[.]”
Thus, it boils down to the fact that Fitzgerald is a very ambitious lawyer of no more than upper middle class means who’s at the end of his current career trajectory. He must find another way to advance and has shown an unscrupulous willingness to attack the Bush administration in the Plame investigation far different from his disinclination to follow a more promising investigation against Harkin. Now he has the golden opportunity of a lifetime—the chance to be the lynchpin of the Democrats’ effort to do what they have been absolutely unable to do since 2000, elect a Democratic President and Congress by destroying the Bush presidency in a time of war. If Fitzgerald accomplishes that, he will be their superstar and is almost assured to become Hillary’s Attorney General. His motive for pursuing this investigation where there is no underlying crime is clear—he ambitiously and unscrupulously desires to become Hillary’s Attorney General.
In the end Libby, who has served faithfully, will be completely vindicated but the damage to his reputation and the Administration will never be repaired.
The Left will move on to create their next Republican "scandal" with the full support of some other rogue Prosecutor, the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the Left-Wing Media.
Show your bank account would be a good place to start, then follow with your brand new red sports car.
Yep. It really is getting tiresome...
POW! You nailed it!
Looks like it's going to be a Fitz-BQ. Well done for me please.
The point is, under the perjury and false statements statutes, a lie must be about a material fact in the investigation. If, as here, there was no underlying crime and the prosecution knew or should have known it, then a lie would not be material and the case should be dismissed.
LOL. I'm telling your wife!!
Well wonder of wonders, and this case was about WHAT?
Now how about who ever it was at the CIA that referred this case to begin with under the pretense that she was covert???? Names please.
Isn't it a valid defense of perjury that the lie was not 'material' to the unlying case? If there is no underlying case, then how can any statement be "material?" Any lawyers on board please correct me.
I tried something similar in the second grade. Mrs. Dunsmore's explanation of its ineffectiveness remains seared in my memory banks.
I say it's all doo doo.
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.