Posted on 02/27/2006 10:54:24 AM PST by frankjr
CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are concerned, it does not matter whether or not Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent when she was mentioned in the famous Robert Novak column of July 14, 2003. "We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued — even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent — the charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.
Fitzgerald's comments mark the evolution of the CIA leak case from a matter in which Fitzgerald investigated allegations that members of the Bush administration outed covert agent Wilson as part of a plot to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson — an alleged act about which Fitzgerald once said, "the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us" — into a case in which Valerie Wilson's job status and any damage done by the disclosure of her identity have become irrelevant, at least in Fitzgerald's view.
Friday's hearing was held to work out conflicts between the Libby defense team and Fitzgerald over the type and amount of evidence that Fitzgerald will allow Libby to have for his defense. Judge Reggie Walton ruled that Libby is entitled to all of his own notes taken during the months before and after the Novak column. But Walton put off a decision on Libby's request for 275 days' worth of the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, although it seems likely that request will ultimately fail. "If I order this, it's going to sabotage the ability of this case to go forward," Walton speculated, suggesting that the White House and the CIA would furiously resist any request for the PDBs.
Then came the question of Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA and the damage, if any, done by the disclosure of her identity. For months now, Fitzgerald has resisted turning over any documents that might show that Wilson's status was classified, or any assessment of the damage resulting from disclosure. At times, Fitzgerald has argued that he did not have the documents, that the documents were none of Libby's business, that the documents were irrelevant to the charges against Libby, and that he did not have any documents to show that Wilson's status was not classified, so that therefore Libby should assume that it was. Finally, in court Friday, Fitzgerald argued that it just does not matter one way or the other.
"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her status?" Walton asked.
"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald responded, adding that he would have more to say on the subject this week in a sealed filing with the court.
Libby attorney Ted Wells objected. At trial, Wells said, Fitzgerald will likely tell the jury that the CIA leak was a bad thing; even if Fitzgerald has no proof of damage, he is sure to tell the jury that the leak could have caused grave damage. Just look in the indictment, Wells pointed out, reading a passage which said:
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
Judge Walton interrupted. Yes, that's what's in the indictment, the judge said, but he might not allow it to be discussed during the trial. "Just because it's alleged in the indictment doesn't necessarily make it admissible," the judge said.
That's true, Wells answered, but the defense has no way of knowing that ahead of time. It has to prepare for trial on the assumption that the damage allegedly done by Wilson's disclosure, as discussed in the indictment and in Fitzgerald's public comments on the case, will be an issue. Therefore, it needs information about Wilson's status to prepare a defense.
At that point, Wells introduced what was the Libby side's most extensive statement to date of its theory of Wilson's CIA status. "I might call Ms. Wilson" to testify, Wells said. "I might call her husband. There are going to be CIA employees as witnesses in this...Was she just classified because some bureaucracy didn't declassify her five years ago when they should have?" Later, Wells asked whether Wilson might have been "classified based on a piece of paper." After Wells's presentation, Fitzgerald responded that Wilson's CIA status did not matter.
Wells's speculation about Wilson's status matches up with descriptions of Wilson's employment offered by some knowledgeable sources. There appears to be no doubt that Wilson was a covert CIA agent at the beginning and during much of her career; people who trained with her and who served with her attest to that. But there are questions about whether Wilson was in any practical way operating undercover in the years leading up to her exposure in the Novak column. The Libby team seemed to be suggesting that Wilson's classified status, if that is what she had, was vestigial — that her undercover days were over and she only retained that status on paper.
One knowledgeable source suggests that might be the case, but maintains that being technically undercover was still being undercover. "She was definitely undercover by agency standards at the time in question," the source says. "That was a classified bit of information, and is sufficient as far as the agency is concerned to bring it to the attention of the Justice Department. You can argue whether she should have been, but as far as the agency was concerned it was classified."
One document that might shed light on the situation is the referral sent by the CIA to the Justice Department after the publication of the Novak column. Libby's lawyers have asked for it, but Fitzgerald is refusing that request, too. On Friday, Fitzgerald said he would address the subject later in his sealed filing. But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral — and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it.
"After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby."
In the end, the judge decided to put off a ruling on the issue until after Fitzgerald files his sealed document, and after Libby's lawyers have a chance to respond to it. What Walton will ultimately decide is unclear. But it is clear what Fitzgerald wants: a CIA leak trial in which the defense is forbidden from learning some critical facts about the CIA leak.
He is committed to getting a scalp for his belt.
There is a critical difference here. Once it became clear that the Lewinsky affadavit filed in the Jones case was false, there was a clear indication that a crime had been committed.
However, there is no indication that any crime was committed by leaking Plame's name.
And if no crime had been committed, then why did Fitz spend two years pulling people in front of a grand jury? He should have folded his tent once that determination was made. Conversely, if he never tried to make it, he had no business pulling people before a grand jury.
Did Fitzgerald perjure himself when he claimed to actually have investigated this case?
That is absolutely not correct. He was discussing his impression of the damaged caused by the leak at that point and then transitioned to talk of obstruction after that.
I abhor dishonesty.
That's funny coming from someone who made a dishonest post.
FBI: My Libby, who did you learn Valreie Plames role as a CIA agent from? Scooter: From some reporters. I don't know who. Around July. My staffers said she was NOT a CIA agent, just an employee of the CIA." Isn't that more likely as to how this went down?
So, Fitz wasn't running an "investigation," he was running a perjury trap. My tax dollars at work.
Wrong again. I looked it up. When he talks of the damage done, he is discussing the leak. When he talks of umpires, he is talking about his investigation.
And the larger point is, it is ambiguous enough to where you can't be calling York dishonest.
You're mixing terms again. You talk of Clinton's perjury to the grand jury.
But that only happened after there was cause to believe that a false affadavit had already been filed in the Jones suit. So Starr was investigating a probable crime, whereas Fitz has never shown that a crime was committed here.
Do you think it wise that a prosecutor can use the power of a grand jury to investigate people when no crime has been proven to any level of doubt, and indict them for recollections about what happened months ago? I think that is prosecutorial misconduct. And almost all perjury indictments are part of a larger swath of crimes. I find it the height of arrogance on Fitz's part that he does not feel compelled to prove that had determined that a crime had probably been committed before taking two years to drag people before a grand jury.
The President of the United States did not appoint him. Also if the President had appointed him, he would have had to be confirmed by the Senate. (He wasn't.)
When you make an allegation based on a false premise, the allegation falls by its own weight.
No he did not commit perjury.
Lawyers statements in court are not under oath. They never swear to tell the truth. (Many times they don't tell the truth.)
The Judge could be upset with a Lawyer who doesn't tell the truth, but most of the time, the Judge remembers when he was a Lawyer before a Judge, so he gives the lying lawyer a pass.
Assume that he knew before hand, through official channels that she was 'covert'. By finding out that reporters also knew that she was the person that directed the CIA to send her husband to Niger, meant that the information was public knowledge. Thus, by learning from reporters the role of Mrs. Wilson, he was no longer obliged to keep it confidential. It would therefore not be perjury to say that he 'learned' of her identity from reporters, even though he might have already known it before hand.
I heard this in a slightly different way: The lawyers can lie, they aren't under oath. But, it's a double edged sword. In most trials, the defendant is lying, and the lawyers are probably lying. The only one that might be telling the truth is the witness. So the judge gets to be a good judge of who's telling the truth. When the attorneys are lying, the judge usually knows it, and discounts their credibility.
...Should discount their credibility.
If the Judge is leaning to a particular outcome, they will use the lawyer's argument as something to base their order upon. It gives them cover, and many lawyers know this, and so give a "Plausible Scenario" just so the Judge will have something to hide behind.
I'm still miffed as to how Fitzgerald could investigate her status for two years without finding out whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated. A simple questionaire sent to the CIA asking for yes or no answers to the statute's requirements, with a request for supporting documentation would have determined in less than one month whether the statute had been violated and further investigation would not be needed. The same could be done with the espionage act of 1917, if he wanted to.
The question of whether reporters knew her identity before Libby told them or whether libby himself learned it from reporters is immaterial at that point. In fact, it never would have needed to be asked.
This case gives me heartburn.
For example, say someone knows from classified sources some tidbit. If they then read that tidbit in the paper, they are not allowed to either confirm or deny it - they ONLY know what they read in the paper - NOT what they know from other sources.
So even if Libby knew it from classified sources, he still didn't know it from unclassified sources to be able to discuss it with unclassifed people. Two different bits of knowledge, even though they indicate the same thing.
I don't know how things were phrased in his interviews or even if the interrogators or Grand Jury were cleared to know his classified knowledge. More importantly, unless he KNEW they were cleared to know it, he had to answer on the basis of his UNclassified knowledge amd talks. That's NOT perjury. It's properly handling classified information.
"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her status?" Walton asked.
"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald responded"
*snip*
...We are just going to send him away for political reasons.
Well he can't claim he perjured himself to keep Valerie secret. After all if all these rules apply in the Grand Jury how much MORE do they apply in talking to Judith Miller or Tim Russert.
OK, well that kinda contradicts what the person above just said in his reply to me. But, be that as it may, I think the issue is that none of those reporters DID tell him about it, he TOLD THEM about it and then lied and said they told him. In fact all the reporters without exception have said they learned about Valerie-as-spy FROM Libby.
Of course that is going to get to a he-said/she-said case. With Russert, Miller, Novak and maybe even Woodward all 'outing their source' big time, in open court and on TV. Libby will have done yet another favor but helping show, to future Ellsworths, that the press are venal and evil and will sell you down the river when it suits them. And now that the NY Times fired Miller (who did act ethically and protect her sources) you know even the damn papers are not really behind their sources!
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.