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 Wilsons 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. Wilsons employment status was classified during the relevant time. The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilsons employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilsons 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 indictments 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. Wilsons 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. Wilsons 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. Wilsons employment because "potential harm to national security was a focus of the governments 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 Counsels statement at his October 28, 2005 press conference that when Ms. Wilsons affiliation with the CIA was made public, "the damage wasnt to one person. It wasnt just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us."
I disagree. Its got everything to do with the case, otherwise its not a crime to out someone who was never covert! A grand jury is seated for the sole purpose of investigation of breaking the law. If they were seated to investigate a crime that was never violated, nor never a crime where no statute has been broken, then Fitz is in big trouble!
Agreed, but I think the problem is that Fitz blabbed a bit too much at his presser and elsewhere about this indictment. I'm not sure if a judge if going to let him smear someone in public when announcing an indictment, then refuse to let the defense get evidence to refute the smears. Even if the smears are not mentioned explicitly in the indictment, I think he may have a problem with that unless Fitz can give good national security reasons why that information should not be required.
I'd still like to know how a supposed "undercover" agent makes political contributions in the name of a fabricated company created to cover one's CIA employment. Wouldn't that be against the policy of the CIA? 10 to 1, Plame used a CIA phone line to pledge these contributions...another act that is not allowed while in the employment of a government agency. But I guess since Al "the wood" Gore did it, others feel it's okay to do it too.
It really strikes me as unethical for a prosecutor to make the claims Fitz made in the press conference and then refuse to provide the documentation to back it up, claiming later it's all technically irrelevant.
I think the referral had to originate within the CIA, due to the nature of the violation ... doesn't mean Rocky couldn't have an implication in that either.
Homey don't play dat
Perjury must be material to determining that there was a crime as well. Even if Libby didn't leak, he can't be allowed to mislead a legitimate investigation. ...But that's not the issue. The issue is that it appears that Fitzgerald failed to determine if there was even a basis for investigation...not that Libby later may have interfered with an investigation that never should have occured.
One might think so, but remember, "The Law, Sir? The Law? The Law, Sir, is a Ass!"
From your keyboard, Bommer, to the Judge's ears.
That's part 1 of Fitz's Perjury Trap.
Part 2: The issue is that it appears that Fitzgerald failed to determine if there was even a basis for investigation...not that Libby later may have interfered with an investigation that never should have occured.
The beauty of Fitz's Perjury Trap is that he can claim that he would be unable to know whether or not there was a case, because Libby lied!
Fitz has served his masters well. His line of legal reasoning is designed to remove Valerie and her husband from the case. Libby is in big, big trouble here.
This is a case of "Turnabout is Fair Play." We didn't get Bill Clinton because of Monica. We got him because he lied about it under oath. It's sadder in Libby's case, because, unlike BJ, it doesn't look like (to me) he knew what he was doing.
If that photo doesn't say it all I don't know what does.
Man, my dream is to see at least 3 of these 4 "see no evil, hear no evil" buffon morons in prison for all the damage they did to this country, and continue to do.
Thanks Howlin
Lump? This will be more like a TON of coal, for the Dems!
BIG bumpity BUMP to this.
The context is investigating whether or not a crime has been comitted. A rule that legally excuses lying to investigators (e.g., put them on the wrong track) would be disruptive.
There is at least one case where the criminal statute itself was found unconstitutional, therefore it was impossible to be a criminal under it. But, the fellow who lied in the case? He still got nailed with perjury.
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.