Posted on 05/20/2006 8:07:47 AM PDT by Laverne
The Lewis Libby defense team filed a new motion last night (the advent of electronic filing means that motions that in the past had to be filed by the close of business on a certain day can now be filed as late as midnight). The filing concerns the argument over press articles that will be used in Libby's trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges in the CIA leak investigation. The most interesting part of the new filing concerns the recently disclosed copy of Joseph Wilson's July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed with Vice President Dick Cheney's personal notes written on it.
In the margins of the article, Cheney wrote, "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"
Some observers have claimed that the annotated article shows Cheney giving Libby his "marching orders" to smear Wilson. And prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in a recent motion that, "Those annotations support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson."
There's only one problem. In the new filing, Libby says that the first time he ever saw the annotated op-ed was when Fitzgerald's FBI agents showed it to him in November 2003. And Libby told that to both Fitzgerald and the grand jury in March 2004 — in testimony which Fitzgerald has not questioned. From the new Libby filing:
The prosecution wants to introduce a copy of Mr. Wilson’s July 6 op-ed that includes notations written by the Vice President, even though it is aware that Mr. Libby testified before the grand jury that he did not see this document until it was shown to him by the FBI in November 2003. On his first day of grand jury testimony, when asked if he recalled discussing this particular document with the Vice President, Mr. Libby testified: "I don't recall that . . . I subsequently learned that he had such an article from the FBI agents who talked to me." During Mr. Libby’s second appearance before the grand jury, the Special Counsel asked him: "[W]hy don't I show you the copy of the July 6th column with some handwriting on it. And I believe we showed this document to you the last time, or at least discussed it, and you indicated that you had not seen this copy of the article with the handwriting until the FBI showed it to you?" Mr. Libby responded: "That's my recollection, sir."
Yet, despite such clear testimony, the government asserts that the Vice President’s notations are relevant to the charges against Mr. Libby and that this document is admissible. The government argues that those notations
support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the Vice President and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in his article, and on responding to those assertions. The annotated version of the article reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the Vice President to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article, and thus is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson’s wife had "sent him on a junket."
The government evidently wants to argue to the jury that "facts that were viewed as important" by the Vice President would have been important to Mr. Libby too, and that the Vice President's notations can be used to show what Mr. Libby focused on during July 2003. These arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgement that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important at trial — precisely what Mr. Libby has been arguing in the pending motion.
Two other notes about the filing. One, it sheds light on why Fitzgerald worded his argument as he did. Saying that the Cheney annotations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op-Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson" would lead any reasonable reader to think that Fitzgerald was saying Libby had seen the document, when in fact Fitzgerald did not have evidence to support that contention, and had Libby's testimony saying he, Libby, had not seen it.
Finally, some observers have suggested that the existence of the annotated op-ed is evidence that Fitzgerald is somehow closing in on Cheney's role in the Wilson affair. But the new filing shows that Fitzgerald has had the op-ed for more than two and a half years and never mentioned it in the Libby indictment or any other statement or filing until recently. If he had some greater purpose in mind for the op-ed, it seems likely he would have acted on it by now.
Scooter Ping
The poor guy will be in debt for millions by the time this is over, and for what ?
The prosecutor would do better to investigate some of the harmful leaks starting with the Pulitzer winners.
Said it many times, the plug needs to be pulled on Fitzzzzzzzzzzz! Fishing on a non criminal leak is definitely an indication all Fitzzzzzzz is looking for is building his name. He is an egotistical maniac.
I wish the courts would order Plame, Wilson, Fitzgerald, CIA leakers, and several reporters to repay the government for all the monies spent on this 'witch hunt' that has been orchestrated by the left imo.
This case needs to be thrown out; Fitzy is really off his rocker if he thinks the annotations on the Op-Ed demonstrate a plan to destroy Plame, via going after Wilson. Cheney's comments are completely ligit, and if you look at the underlines in the article, Cheney highlights all the lies Wilson was spewing. I'm truly apalled that the judges have allowed this to go on. Wilson was lieing, and Cheney et al, are supposed to sit back and let the lies stand? This was not an attack on a whistle blower, it was an attempt to correct the record with facts versus Wilson's lies. The longer Fitzy keeps open his grand jury, the more ridiculous he looks.
Well,,, why isn't Fitzy investigating this?????
It sounds to me like Joe and Val were just taking Uncle Sucker for a free ride, on the taxpayers dime, to smear/discredit the opposing politcal party!
Hey Fitz!!! Pull yer head outta the portajohn and lookit where it's coming from!!
"The longer Fitzy keeps open his grand jury, the more ridiculous he looks."
He is playing to a certain audience that he believes won't find him ridiculous - i.e., just a useful tool. Looks like he's angling for a high position in a future Jamie Gorelick Justice Department.
Thanks for ping- this is beyond absurd. Reading Cheney's notes it seems he was simply wondering what was going on. It's very hard to read sinister intent- implied or otherwise.
THAT, brother and sister Freepers, is precisely why President Bush sent Gen. Hayden, former NSA Chief in charge of establishing the program to "cross check and listen in on pertinent phone calls and messages to suspected terrorists (and political spies in the CIA) inside and outside the U.S."
Some new court filings, from last night, here are the links:
A filing from Team Libby: http://americablog.blogspot.com/libbymay19.pdf
A filing from fitzy: http://americablog.blogspot.com/fitzmay19.pdf
All about discovery.
...and their loyal servant, Fitzgerald.
Absolutely.
In fact, the annotations are damning to Wilson, as it proves that the VP had not sent him on that trip, as Wilson had claimed. It also shows that the idea of sending Wilson at all was questionable.
Hopefully, after Libby is acquited, he'll write a book and earn enough money to pay his legal debts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4 The government evidently wants to argue to the jury that “facts that were viewed as important” by the Vice President would have been important to Mr. Libby too, and that the Vice President’s notations can be used to show what Mr. Libby focused on during July 2003.
These arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgement that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important at trial – precisely what Mr. Libby has been arguing in the pending motion.
Documents reflecting the administration’s response to Mr. Wilson’s claims about what he learned during his trip and to whom his report was sent are discoverable, whether Mr. Libby has previously seen them or not.
-----------------------------
2 It is unclear to the defense how the government intends to authenticate this document given that it has previously represented that it does not intend to call the Vice President as a witness. of 10
The only person that can say what he mean by the annotated notes is the Veep. To me, it sounds like the Veep was asking questions that should have been asked not a smear campaign against a woman who, along with her hubby, outed herself.
Exactly; only wilson, cooper, old media, dnc, and fitzy can read those commnts and the underlines as an attempt to smear wilson and his gal-pal val.
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.