Posted on 03/10/2006 2:43:30 PM PST by Cboldt
A federal judge ordered the CIA on Friday to turn over highly classified intelligence briefings to Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide to use in the aide's defense against perjury charges.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected CIA warnings that the nation's security would be imperiled if the presidential-level documents were disclosed to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff.
The judge said the CIA can either delete highly classified information from the briefing material and provide copies of what Libby received six days a week, often with Cheney. Or, Walton said, the CIA can produce "topic overviews" of the matters covered in the briefings.
The judge also ordered the CIA to give Libby an index of the topics covered in follow-up questions that the former White House aide asked intelligence officers who conducted the briefings.
In seeking CIA input late last month, Walton appeared to have been trying to broker a compromise between defense attorneys and prosecutors to avoid a lengthy court battle with the Bush administration over the briefing material.
The judge's order indicates he is ready for such a fight. He set a schedule for the Bush administration to file any objections by March 24.
The charges against Libby - perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents - grew out of an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Will Walton tell us who leaked to Novak?
This is big news. I think it suggests that the judge won't honor Fitzgerald's deals with the reporters either. Either the info will have to be coughed up, or the charges will be dismissed.
That's my first reaction to this story. I reserve the right to revised and extend my remarks later on.
Since when does a jumped up judge get to jack with national security level information and it's distribution?\
The judge will let him see highly classified material but won't let him know who the other known leakers are.
The leaker to Novak has a reputation to protect.
Not my view, but the judge's. He said that. LOL
But Walton noted in his ruling that most of what he ordered Libby to receive probably won't be revealed to a jury. Any classified evidence that Libby wants to use must be approved by the judge after a secret vetting process established by Congress to ensure protection of government secrets. ...Libby's lawyers originally wanted nearly a year of the President's Daily Brief, a summary of some of the government's most sensitive intelligence gathered on threats to the United States.
The lawyers want to use the briefings as the cornerstone of Libby's defense: to show that the former top White House aide had more important matters on his mind and could have easily forgotten or remembered incorrectly "snippets" of conversations he had about CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald opposed giving Libby any of the briefings and accused the defense of trying to derail the case by "greymail," a process where former government officials have forced dismissals of their cases because they threatened to reveal the nation's secrets at their trials.
"Neither party has it exactly right," Walton wrote.
Libby needs to know the gist of the intelligence briefings to put on a "preoccupation defense," the judge said. But, he said, the former White House aide should be able to refresh his memory by reviewing generalized versions of the intelligence briefings.
"It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.
The judge also rejected Fitzgerald's arguments that the intelligence briefings belong to the vice president's office and the CIA, two agencies that were not part of the investigation.
Walton said "there can be little doubt" that when Fitzgerald has asked either agency for help in his probe, there has been "a rather free flow" of information.
"These entities have contributed significantly to the investigation and without their contribution it is unlikely that the indictment in this case could have been secured," the judge wrote.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3715415.html
I expect Libby's lawyers may appeal. This story and another say that all the confidential material will be redacted, or that the briefings will be summarized. I'm not sure why Libby should settle for that. I would imagine that he has a higher security clearance than Fitzgerald, on a need to know basis.
Also, FoxNews just reported the story on air.
I don't think the WH will refuse (exec. priviledge, I guess) outright because they won't want to be seen as killing this case themselves.
Unless this is an attempt to force the WH to kill the case. I've always felt that Fitz wants a way out of this.
I imagine one of the briefings discusses Joe Wilson and how he was selected to go on his trip...That briefing should contain info about Plames official status I would imagine. Wouldn't it be something if the CIA's briefing stated she wasn't a NOC?
Didn't Novak say the leaker would be revealed?
Who the heck is this person???
I wish they'd do that. All Libby was trying to do was defend the administration against the lies of Joe Wilson.
Libby needs to know the gist of the intelligence briefings to put on a "preoccupation defense," the judge said. But, he said, the former White House aide should be able to refresh his memory by reviewing generalized versions of the intelligence briefings. ...I think Libby's counsel agreed to something on the order of summaries. But the CIA countered, saying that even providing a list of "issues of the day" will illuminate the nature of WH operations in enough detail to compromise security."It is inconceivable that the defendant's memory of matters of significance to him have totally vanished," Walton wrote.
This ruling puts the WH in a tough spot. Does it prosecute false testimony in a leak case, or let it go? Letting it go will raise a charge of covering up for Libby, or "sham prosecution," inasmuch as even if there WAS a leak, the leaker can get off by the same mechanism used here.
If the WH is trying to put heat on CIA for acting the part of an ass (e.g., claiming disclosure of covert agent when there wasn't, in order to cover for its inept handling of Wilson and Plame in the first place), perhaps it is willing to risk whatever damage results from disclosing the PDB punch list.
I figured that whichever way Walton ruled, the ruling would be appealed. In this case, I think it's up to Fitz and the administration to choose to appeal the order, or comply with Walton's order, or withdraw the charge.
LOL....tic toc tic toc...this case is over...
Will Fitzgerald appeal?
###
Did God make little green apples?
That is the game here. They want this dragged out until after November 2008. Then the case will be dropped.
Yep...Fitz's trumped up case is on the skids big time.
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.