Posted on 03/20/2006 7:57:28 AM PST by Cboldt
It's sometimes difficult to remember, given the legal twists and turns it has taken, that the CIA leak investigation was begun to find out who exposed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson to columnist Robert Novak and whether that person violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in doing so. After more than two years of investigating, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with that crime -- if indeed it was a crime -- nor has he publicly answered either question. Fitzgerald has even refused to provide lawyers for the only person indicted in the case, former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, with evidence that Wilson was indeed a covert agent at the time of the July 14, 2003, Novak column, or that the exposure of her identity did any damage to national security, arguing that that information -- the very heart of the CIA leak case -- is not relevant to the perjury and obstruction charges against Libby.
But now the Libby defense team is attempting to return the case to first things. In an extraordinary 35-page motion filed with Judge Reggie Walton late Friday, Libby's lawyers lay the groundwork for a plan to use his perjury trial as a way to find what happened in the CIA leak affair. After all, just what is it that Libby is accused of lying about? Why was it that all the conversations in question were taking place? Who said what to whom? If Libby's lawyers persuade Judge Walton to order Fitzgerald to turn over some of the reams of information he has gathered in the case, we might finally found out -- most likely over the prosecutor's vigorous objections -- what actually happened in the CIA leak case.
Libby's motion is, formally, a request for documents relating to the expected testimony of an imposing roster of current and former government officials likely to be called as witnesses in the trial. In the motion, they are listed together (at least publicly) for the first time:
[Libby's lawyers also say they expect Vice President Cheney to testify, but his name is not on the list because Fitzgerald has already turned over documents from Cheney's office, and thus Libby is not requesting any new evidence from that source.]
Some of the witnesses are expected to testify that they told Libby that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, or that Libby told them that -- accounts Fitzgerald believes will help him make the case that Libby lied to the grand jury about how he learned about Valerie Wilson. But in the new motion, Libby argues, in effect, that these people also know the larger story of the CIA leak. And knowing that larger story is necessary to understand Libby's testimony; for Libby's lawyers to question the witnesses about his allegedly false testimony, the lawyers will have to know what was going on at the time. Is one of the witnesses himself Novak's source? Does anyone have a motive to shade his testimony against Libby? And what was the context in which all the talking was taking place? In the court papers, Libby's lawyers suggest that the answers to those questions will demolish Fitzgerald's interpretation of events.
The indictment against Libby contains a series of statements which strongly suggest that the White House's desire to retaliate against Joseph Wilson led to a scheme to expose his wife's identity. But Libby's lawyers say Fitzgerald, tightly focused on Valerie Wilson, missed the big picture of what was happening in May, June, and July 2003. During that time, the motion argues, Libby was preoccupied with the now-famous "16 words" in the president's State of the Union address concerning Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger, and also with parrying ferocious Democratic attacks on the administration's case for the war. In addition, the lawyers say, Libby was fighting a rear-guard action against other officials of the Bush administration, specifically those in the CIA and the State Department, who were trying to blame the White House for the Iraq intelligence debacle. Compared to that -- in what was surely one of the most intense periods in an administration filled with intense periods -- the identity of Valerie Wilson, Libby argues, was small potatoes. "The indictment presents a distorted picture of the relevant events," the motion says,
by exaggerating the importance government officials, including Mr. Libby, attributed to Ms. Wilsons employment status prior to July 14, 2003. The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilsons affiliation with the CIA. Doing so makes it easier to suggest that Mr. Libby would not have forgotten or confused his conversations concerning Ms. Wilson and has therefore intentionally lied. In contrast, the defense intends to present a more complete and accurate narrative. The defense will show that during the controversy about the sixteen words in the Presidents 2003 State of the Union address and about Ambassador Wilsons criticism of the Bush Administration, government officials, including Mr. Libby, viewed Ms. Wilsons identity as at most a peripheral issue. To the extent that these officials were focused on Mr. Wilson, they were concerned with publicly disputing mistaken or misleading reports about his trip [to Niger] and his findings, not with where his wife worked.
In another part of the motion, the Libby defense team refers to Valerie Wilson's role in the matter as "minor" and "not important" and also refers to the "falsity" of some of Joseph Wilson's statements. Specifically, the motion says, "Contrary to Mr. Wilson's claims, he did not debunk as forgeries documents suggesting that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa." It was claims like that, which received extensive coverage in the press and cried out for rebuttal, the lawyers argue, that demanded Libby's attention -- not the place of Wilson's wife's employment.
"If the jury learns this background information," the Libby motion continues, "and also understands Mr. Libbys additional focus on urgent national security matters, the jury will more easily appreciate how Mr. Libby may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable."
And who actually leaked Valerie Wilson's identity to Robert Novak, and was it a crime? The Libby defense team writes that it expects "witness testimony that within the government Ms. Wilsons employment status was not regarded as classified, sensitive or secret, contrary to the allegations in the indictment." And the motion states flatly that "the primary source for Mr. Novak's article" was not only not Lewis Libby but was "an official from outside the White House." [emphasis in the original] As for who that might be, the Libby team points the finger toward the State Department.
Specifically, the top of the State Department. The motion says, "The defense may call Mr. Powell to testify about a September 2003 meeting at the White House during which he is reported to have commented that everyone knows that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA. At the same meeting, Mr. Powell also reportedly mentioned a 2002 meeting during which Ms. Wilson suggested her husband for the CIA mission to Niger." Later, the motion requests "Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson's wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger."
In other parts of the motion, the Libby team, echoing recent media reports, suggests that the trio of Powell, his former deputy Richard Armitage, and former top State Department official Marc Grossman knew about Valerie Wilson's job and talked to reporters about it:
Documents pertaining to Mr. Wilsons trip from Mr. Grossmans files must also be examined carefully by the defense because Mr. Grossman may not be a disinterested witness. This week, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as other media outlets, reported that Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. There has been media speculation that Mr. Woodwards source and Mr. Novaks source are the same person. If the facts ultimately show that Mr. Armitage or someone else from the State Department was also Mr. Novaks primary source, then the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the "leak" that led to the public disclosure of Ms. Wilsons CIA identity.
As for the CIA, Libby contends that the agency, once the Wilson matter blew up, did its best to undercut Libby and the vice president's office. It appears that Libby believes strongly, but does not have any proof, that the CIA was out to get Libby and his colleagues, and that therefore the testimony of any CIA officials might be suspect. "If CIA officials perceived that Mr. Tenet or the Agency were being unfairly criticized or scapegoated, these officials likely expressed their discontent about this bureaucratic infighting in email messages and other documents," the Libby motion says. "The defense is entitled to review any such documents because they bear directly on potential bias against Mr. Libby by CIA witnesses."
In the end, if Libby's version of events is correct, not only did he not commit any crimes in the Wilson matter, but no one at the State Department or the CIA committed any crimes, either. All anyone is guilty of is cutthroat bureaucratic infighting -- and having the misfortune of seeing that cutthroat bureaucratic infighting become the subject of a special prosecutor's attention.
Fitzgerald will no doubt work hard to keep these issues out of the courtroom during what he contends is a straightforward perjury case. But surely what Libby is accused of lying about will ultimately be part of the trial. And it is in that way that Fitzgerald may have backed himself into a corner. Throughout the pre-trial motions in the case, he has argued, over and over, that it doesn't matter who leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, or why. It doesn't matter if Wilson was covert. It doesn't matter if the leak did any damage. In other words, the CIA leak is not relevant to the CIA leak case. Surely he will continue to argue that throughout the trial itself. But is that what his investigation -- now in its third year -- was really about?
I got to wondering about that with an open mind. How the heck could Fitz have gone looking for a leaker without first proving or finding there was an actionable leak?
But here's Tenet prodding the DoJ to "get on the case," the President saying "this is a serious leak," etc. - as well as what I think is the assumption that CIA won't forward a referral that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a conviction on. I blame Fitz more for naivety than for flubbing the obvious. He made a mistake at the indictment announcement presser where he made the leak into a big deal. He should have focused on lying to investigators as a deal, and left it at that.
Fitz is still dogging Miller to cough up her sources and connections relating to the Holy Land Foundation case.
So far, Fitz has been responsive. He doesn't necessarily give the defense what they want, but he's been arguing his case in writing before the Court.
This motion of Libby's will go through the same process - both sides have their say, then the judge issues a ruling and order. Judge Walton did that with the Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB) request of Libby.
There are a number of lines of argument in play ...
Fitzgerald is playing "Calvinball" (the rules keep changing as the game goes on). As far as he's concerned, nothing about the actual leak still matters...the only thing that matters now is Libby and Russert differed in what they said, therefore Libby was lying. All he needs to do is to assemble a jury of 12 Bush-hating Democrats and get them to find Libby guilty. Truth and justice are irrelevant.
I want to see the whole Wilson conspiracy finally exposed. I still believe since he went to Niger to "investigate" information most likely gather via "HUMINT" his disclosures were illegal. When Val was "outed" the rats ran with it.
Almost like the Dems discussing censuring Bush about the NSA program when they illegally leaked Top Secret SCI.
THIS is an outstanding article.
(( ping ))
Is Libby paying for all this lawyering ?
Plame game....ping
No, he needs a judge that will allow him to keep all the evidence that destroys his case out of the courtroom.
I don't think he'll be able to do it. I think Libby's lawyers are going to eat him for lunch, and the case will dissolve before it ever gets to trial. It's all smoke.
"Good strategy on Libby's part, to make the trial into a leak case."
Exactly, the charge is Libby didn't get his story straight about conversations with journalists some months prior. Sort of a memory test with the booby prize a felony conviction--way unfair!
Responsive perhaps. Forthcoming, hardly. Helpful - not.
Kinda typical of a prosecutor who has a weak case.
Words and music by Scooter Libby. From a true story about a D.C. trainwreck and the half-cocked engineer who failed to brake in time.
Sounds like the quotation imputed to Colin Powell matches pretty closely to Andrea Mitchell's statement that it was widely known in Washington that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA.
I wonder if Colin used the same phraseology in talking to journalists that he did in talking in the White House situation room.
The documents sought by this motion are just as important to Mr. Libby’s defense. Here, we request documents concerning former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 68-1 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 5 of 39 2 trip to Niger, and his wife’s involvement with that trip, ie:2. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan by any government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson. 3. All documents reflecting Mr. Wilson’s communications with officials at the State Department or other government agencies concerning his trip to Niger or the “sixteen words.”
The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. Doing so makes it easier to suggest that Mr. Libby would not have forgotten or confused his conversations concerning Ms. Wilson and has therefore intentionally lied. The defense has requested: 2. All documents or information concerning the identity of any government official outside the CIA who was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA.
The defense's case:
Mr. Libby had no intent to lie because he did not believe that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified. Second, Mr. Libby was not part of a conspiracy to harm Mr. Wilson by disclosing his wife’s CIA affiliation and thus had no reason to cover up such involvement. Third, Mr. Libby did not believe anyone who worked closely with him had done anything wrong and thus had no motive to lie to protect anyone else.
David Barrett, has spent more than a decade and $21 million investigating Cisneros and he's still at it!
Ken Starr spent $47 million investigating the Clintons and Lawrence Walsh spent $48 million investigating the Reagan administration!!!
Don't take this personally, but I am always amused by the fact that almost everyone who couldn't care less about something phrases it in the same terms as you did. Am I wrong to say that if a person cared nothing about something that the proper way of expressing it would be:
"I couldn't care less"?
I think Fitzgerald may be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. I believe Justice Dept guidelines say that the first step in such an investigation is determining whether any crime was committed. If there was no crime, there should have been no investigation. There appears to have been no crime, and Fitzgerald should have drawn that conclusion.
'could care less', 'couldn't care less' - irregardless!
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.