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?
All of your summations were great. The one above, however, leads me to conclude that Fitzgerald is a sonofabitch to have brought such bogus charges against Libby. I hope he can't sleep at night knowing that he's done irreparable harm to a dedicated and decent man's career and finances all because he wanted the approval from the left and his one hour of fame, giving his ridiculous joke of a press conference.
It's down right nauseating and I hope what goes around comes around really soon and smacks Fitzgerald upside the head so hard that he'll never recover.
Does Patrick Fitzgerald Get Two Salaries?
He has two jobs.By Daniel Engber
Posted Friday, Oct. 28, 2005, at 6:12 PM ETThis afternoon, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide. Fitzgerald also serves as a U.S. attorney based in Chicago, and his office is prosecuting the former governor of Illinois. Does Patrick Fitzgerald get two salaries?
No. In December of 2003, the U.S. Attorney General's Office appointed Fitzgerald to be the special prosecutor for the CIA leak case that led to today's indictment, but that doesn't mean he left his job as U.S. attorney. Since he was already on the government payroll--making $140,300 a year--he wasn't eligible to receive any more money for the additional work. To handle both jobs, Fitzgerald--or "Fitzie," as he's known to friends--shuttles to Washington, D.C., from the Windy City, where he spends most of his time.
Also, how much is he paying his staff and what is the total so far.
I'd also like to know the total so far for Fitz's personal expenses.....and for the personal expenses for his staff. Travel, hotels, meals, gasoline, car rentals, you name it....I'd like to see it.
A Tough Investigation Is Also Praised as NonpartisanFor breakdown, see GAO reports, for example ...By Peter Slevin and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 24, 2005; A03Known for convicting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and for compiling the first criminal indictment against Osama bin Laden, Fitzgerald is an Irish doorman's son who attended a Jesuit high school, then Amherst College -- where he was a Phi Beta Kappa mathematics and economics major -- and Harvard. ...
While supervising at least four lawyers and an FBI team in the leak case, Fitzgerald jetted between his downtown Chicago office and borrowed space at 1400 New York Ave. NW, not far from the courthouse where the grand jury meets most Wednesdays and Fridays. In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office.
This is starting to remind me of that old song, "Nice work if you can get it...and you can get it if you try".......tra, la, la......
Leni
I don't recall the President ever saying that.
President Bush did lend gravitas to post-indictment activity ...
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 28, 2005President's Remarks on the Resignation of Scooter Libby
3:51 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Today I accepted the resignation of Scooter Libby. Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history.
Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious, and now the proceedings -- the process moves into a new phase. In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051028-7.html
I don't believe it. I'm just trying to understand the dynamics that indicate why Fitz didn't "check up" on "covert or not" as a first matter, and think that the general tenor of being appointed, etc. plays into that.
I also say that Fitz has motive to not be fingered as a leaker, based on President Bush's public expressions that he considered the leak to be a serious matter.
When the DEMs howled about the word "operative", Bush's staff ran for the bunkers. They have horrible, almost debilitating PR skills.
Maybe somebody wanted to throw Libby under the bus - although there is no evidence to support that. I don't know the players, but my guess is that Libby was acting on his own judgment when (if) he decided to lead the investigation away from his factual knowledge that Plame worked at the CIA. Note that I am carefully using the same phrase that is in the indictment "worked at the CIA." Not "covert," or "calssified" or some other hocus pocus phrase. Just "worked at the CIA." Did Libby know that, for a fact? That's one aspect of the decision the jury will face, if the case goes all the way to trial.
How dare you invoke a vocable owned by the old media and used by them for the purpose of negatively assessing the character of President Bush! Fifty lashes with a kernable font!
Good post. I have little faith any proper resolution to this overly-amplified miscarriage of misdirected umbrage will ever be executed, let alone be published. At the same time my faith in liberal Democrat shenanigans remains wholly undiminished.
The train has too much momentum to stop, at this point. Proper or not, there will be a resolution. I think, given the stakes (peanuts), the resolution will be proper.
At the same time my faith in liberal Democrat shenanigans remains wholly undiminished.
Rereading the Congressional Record from Sept 30, 2003 was a hoot.
Those whacky DEMs! Sure are tons of fun.
Covert types who operate in the interest of the United States ought to enjoy certain protections (and that means the ability to be kept from harm through any public announcement of their career) whether they are currently or historically active. My question is whether Plame and Wilson even operate(d) in the interest of the United States.
Same might apply to some witnesses we only thought were 'powerful people".
Agree...His OPED pieces were misleading, and released classified info IMHO. Couple that with the fact that they had the media over to their home before the Novak story leads me to believe the were DNC partisans who put the party ahead of their country.
Whatever happens, it will not get much more press until the rules are set and the jury selection is in process.
Plame game....ping
Ping
Did it ever occur to you that what the president believed has nothing to do with the state of mind of the defendant? Further, is it possible that Bush was making a politically expedient statement after the fact so as not to fan the flames of outrage of politically motivated liberals?
The If you seem to think is so important is a rhetorical question. I'm sure you know what rhetorical means.
Well according to your democrats they argued that this was all about attacking the credibility of Wilson.
'could care less', 'couldn't care less' - irregardless!
LOL
I never thought the President based his conclusion (whatever it is - you later seem to say the the Presindent doesn't really belive the investigation is serious, that he used the term as a mer rhetorical device) based on Libby's state of mind.
... is it possible that Bush was making a politically expedient statement after the fact so as not to fan the flames of outrage of politically motivated liberals?
Certainly. But whatever his reasoning for making the statement, the statement lends gravitas to Fitz's prosecution.
Well according to your democrats they argued that this was all about attacking the credibility of Wilson.
Wilson's credibility deserves to be attacked.
You are NOT wrong.
Almost everyone uses that phrase incorrectly.
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.