Libby’s attorneys also question how Fitzgerald will authenticate the handwritten notes attributed to the Cheney if they do not call him as a witness.
```````````````````````````````````````` 
Posted on 05/24/2006 6:36:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
Attorneys for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby attacked plans by prosecutors in the CIA leak case to submit a New York Times op-ed containing handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney.
In a court filing late Friday night, Libby’s lawyers argued that their client testified before the grand jury that he did not see this document until it was shown to him by the FBI in November 2003.
The op-ed article by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, which was published July 6, 2003, argued that the Bush administration “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat” in the run-up to a U.S.-led invasion. Story continues below ↓ advertisement
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has argued in court filings, that the Cheney’s notes on the op-ed article expressed the concern he had about assertions made by Wilson, which concluded that the Bush administration somehow, “twisted” some intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
Those concerns about the merits of Wilson’s findings, after his trip to Niger, included the notation by the Vice President questioning whether Wilson’s wife had “sent him on a junket.”
Fitzgerald has argued that the op-ed triggered a campaign in the White House to discredit Wilson’s finding which included outing Wilson’s wife, a classified CIA agent, to reporters.
Libby’s attorney’s say 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 Libby too, and that the Cheney’s notes can be used to show what Libby focused on during July 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Libby’s attorneys also question how Fitzgerald will authenticate the handwritten notes attributed to the Cheney if they do not call him as a witness.
````````````````````````````````````````
"Libby’s attorneys write, “The jury will not be able to judge the relative importance of Mr. Wilson’s allegations and the peripheral nature of information about his wife if it does not understand the full factual context that Mr. Libby and others confronted.”
These lawyers of Libby's are worth every penny:)
Thanks for the ping! :-)
I notice Cheney neglected to scribble the date on which he wrote these notes in the margin.
Has Fitz the Cat pinpointed when they were written?
More misinformation on Wilson-Plame
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050725-085658-2637r.htm
On the same roundtable, Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio asserted that Mrs. Plame had a "whole network of people who dealt with her about weapons of mass destruction, and her whole network was put in jeopardy by the revelation of her identity." Why this would be the fault of the nefarious Bush administration is unclear, given the facts that:
1) her identity as an undercover CIA agent was compromised twice beforehand, including once in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy;
2) she was by all accounts working under very light cover for the CIA, as evidenced by the fact that numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency.
Also outed by Joe Wilson in "Who's Who in 2002". when he listed Valerie Plame as his wife.
It looks like the date on the newspaper is July 6th 2003
LOL!!!
I just noticed that's the date mentioned in post #1.
And I strained my eyes to read the date on the graphic. Duh!
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.