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.
Fitzgerald is just milking this assignment for as long as he can and for as much income as he can.
Any beat cop in America could have determined in a day that Plame was nothing more than a desk jockey at CIA; nothing more, nothing less.
Great posting ...........
The headline says just about everything there is about this sorry saga.
To be honest, Scooter is in the same boat previously sailed by Martha Stewart - indicted for lying about a No-Crime.
"There was no actual crime. But I had people so confused that they couldn't tell fact from fiction and thus perjured themselves because they couldn't remember my b.s." - Fitzmas
Preposterous. Lewis Carroll would love it.
IMO this writer misses the biggest news -
The judge told Libby's lawyers, and thereby the public, we don't need to know who the first leaker to Novak was.
It's too late. The jury pool has been tainted.
Funny, but the CIA standards are clearly out of step with the law itself - otherwise Fitzy would have cited a violation of the covert status law.
By the time this is all said and done, Fitz will have so many layers of egg on his face he'll never be able to peel them off.
Catch-22 Visited
To be honest, I don't know what lies Scooter made. Can you help us all out here? Thanks in advance.
No that's the indictment ... not proven. Sorry for the confusion.
Bookmark.
Fitz:Mr Libby Lied.
Libby's lawyer:About what?
Fitz:About who said Valeria Flame was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she a covert agent?
Fitz: I don't know it's not germane.
Libby's lawyer:If it's not germane what did Mr. Libby lie about that is germane to this case?
Fitz: About who said she was a covert agent first.
Libby's lawyer: Was she?
Fitz:It's not germane.
Libby's lawyer: But Mr Libby lied about something not germane to this case?
Fitz:Yes.
Libby's lawyer: Did Mr. Libby lie about something germane to this case?
Fitz: That's what I'm saying.
Libby's lawyer: Saying what that is germane?
Fitz: That's right, germane.
Libby's lawyer: To this case.
Fitz: Yes.
Libby's lawyer: What.
Fitz: No, What's on second.
Fitz then showed that Libby had in fact asked a staffer to find out about her prior to all tese calls, and the staffer hand reported back that she was a CIA agent.
Thus Fitz charges Libby with lying to the GJ and FBI about where he learned of Val's job. And obstructing justice in doing so.
Again, going back to Clinton's adventures, this sure does sound like Perjury, doesn't it.
FBI: My Libby, who did you learn Valreie Plames role as a CIA agent from?
LIBBY: Some reporter, I'm note sure who, around July
... but in fact he had learned it months earlier via official channels.
Perhaps some Libby supporter can expain why he is not guilty of simple perjury. As I see things Val's secret status, or lack of it, *is* not really an issue.
note to self: use PREVIEW and PROOF READ. My = Mr, mispelling of 'conversation'. Oops. Sorry team FR!
Golly, I hope so. But I'm afraid that Fitz is going to have so thoroughly confused the issue that the jury will wind up going Through the Looking Glass without ever realizing that they have been inverted.
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.