Posted on 02/14/2007 11:50:23 AM PST by Jack Black
Judge: Defense Misled Court About Libby
Feb 14 2:13 PM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense attorneys misled the court into thinking that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby would testify in his CIA leak trial, a federal judge said Wednesday, as he blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case. Libby is accused of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity. His attorneys have said for months in court papers that Libby would testify that he had important national security issues on his mind and that he simply forgot details about his conversations regarding the CIA employee, Valerie Plame.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. The prosecutor said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats.
When defense attorneys abruptly announced Wednesday that Libby no longer planned to testify, however, Fitzgerald said that jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings.
Walton agreed, and reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
"My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify," the judge said. "My ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify."
Walton appeared upset and seemed to stake his reputation on the decision. Libby's attorneys indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted.
"If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is," Walton said. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs."
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald said that, too, should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Walton said he would rule on that issue later Wednesday. He also was weighing whether to put NBC newsman Tim Russert back on the witness stand so Libby's attorneys could continue attacking his credibility.
Russert, who testified last week, is a key witness in case. Libby's attorneys want to show jurors three video clips that seem to contradict some of Russert's testimony.
Russert testified last week that he never discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame with Libby. Libby told investigators that Russert asked about Plame and said "all the reporters" knew she worked at the CIA. That dispute is at the heart of the case. Libby is accused of making up the Russert call to cover up other conversations he had with reporters and of obstructing the investigation into the leak of Plame's name.
The most recent effort to discredit Russert does not directly undercut his story. Rather it involves testimony over the arrangements prosecutors made in exchange for Russert's cooperation.
Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. As Libby's attorneys tried last week to cast that as favorable treatment, Russert _ a law school graduate and former Senate counsel _ said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present.
Libby's attorneys found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration. In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify.
"His credibility, it seems to me, is crucial to this case," Walton said. "He's probably, if not the most important, one of the most important witnesses."
Fitzgerald said Libby's attorneys had their chance to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over." Russert was cross-examined for five hours after offering 12 minutes of direct testimony. Fitzgerald said it doesn't matter what Russert knew about grand jury procedure.
Defense attorney Theodore Wells said Russert got special treatment and he wants to use the tapes to show Russert was trying to conceal that.
Russert and Libby tell different stories about a July 2003 phone conversation. Libby says at the end of the call, Russert told him that Plame, the wife of prominent war critic Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Russert said that part of the conversation never occurred.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing classified information from government sources.
___
In Russert's defense, he was probably reading off a teleprompter when he made the comments. That stuff doesn't really register with the newsreader. (sarcasm tag off0
Actually I have read very little on the trial except on conservative blogs. Seems to me that Libby's team is causing nicks and cuts, and the prosecutions big guns are scoring body blows.
The weight of guys like Russert (no pun) and likelyhood that Mitchell won't be called to testify, coupled with the fact its a DC jury gives me the feeling that Libby's got an uphill battle.
Then there is the psychological aspect: if the libs are looking for a way to display patriotism (after their treasonous non-support of the troops) what better way than to support a "brave, patriotic, woman CIA operative who risked her life in service to the United States"!?
I'm pulling for Libby....but not making any bets.
Sadly, it's POSSIBLE that Libby will get time in prison....it's a DC JURY AND JUDGE!!!
Yes...sadly, if I had to place a bet...I would bet against Libby getting off.
right now, I think its 60% conviction, 39% hung jury, 1% acquittal.
(((((shudder))))))) poor Scooter!!
I'm up from 29% last week.
Maybe Pres. Bush is waiting for this verdict to come in...and then if Libby get convicted...will give 3 pardons at once.
One for Libby...and the two for the border guards.
February 14, 2007
Russert on the hot seat
Clarice Feldman
Tim Russert has got some explaining to do. At the close of the Libby Trial on Tuesday, the defense indicated it wanted to recall Russert to the stand to impeach a statement of his. The life of a TV talking head tends to leave a lot of evidence of what one knows and doesn't know.
Russert had claimed that he didn't know that the special accommodations worked out by NBC lawyers and the prosecutor to allow him to give his deposition with his lawyers present and not before the grand jury was a special deal, and that he did not know that witnesses before a grand jury were not allowed to have counsel present.
I think this remark he made on the August 8, 1998 CNN Larry King Live show, will certainly be one of the impeaching statements the defense offers up:
RUSSERT: It's been suggested by no less than the former governor of New York the other night, that now that the president has decided that he's going to testify before the grand jury, why do it in the Oval Office and why insist that his lawyer be there.?
Go into the grand jury without a lawyer, like every other American citizen, go
ahead, ask me any question you want and I'll give you an honest answer.
Or, alternatively, he's definitely well into the initial stages of Alzheimer's.
She's like a precision surgeon!! Yay, Clarice!! I love her mind.
Kafka himself couldn't have done his name any prouder than the authors of this investigation and trial.
I'm pulling for Libby, his lawyers...and you to be right! I'm still not making bets...it's a Washington DC jury, and DC re-elected mayor Marion Barry.
I'm a left coastie too - they're weird back there!
Here's what Fitzgerald has going for a conviction:
1. It's a DC Jury.
2. Most DC citizens are LIBERAL and view the Bush Administration as the enemy. ANY chance to hit the Bush Adminstration will be taken.
IMO, those two give Fitzgerald a 75%, or better, chance of getting a conviction.
Other than those 2 things, in reality, Fitzgerald has no case.
His ENTIRE case is based on differing recollections of a months old conversation between Russert and Libby. Libby's lawyers easily showed that Russert had vague or shaky recollections about conversations.
Reasonable dooubt? How about absolute doubt.
Walton just threw the door for overturning on appeal WIDE open in case of jury conviction, intentionally or unintentionally. By now, jury really already knows what they need to know about this charade. Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory would be nice - for the perjury counts - to completely impeach Russert's testimony about knowledge about Plame, but they could decide to lie as well. Any other testimony about Plamegate is not necessary, it's been thoroughly debunked by the defense in front of the jury, and would not contribute to defense.
If this jury decide to convict Libby, they already came to this decision and no additional testimony from the usual suspects is going to change their mind. And it has nothing to do with specifics of the case, or quality of defense, or brilliance of prosecution, or guilt or innocence.
It was designed to be from Day One a political show trial of WH and VP... The fact that Fitz could only get one person (Libby, with whom he had bad personal history) on flimsiest of charges is testimony in itself of how insignificant his case was.
To not allow witnesses for the defense to testify, depending on whether the defendant himself will testify, automatically denies defendant a right to a fair trial, since you can't compel the defendant to testify against his will. If that were so, prosecution could blackmail every defendant to appear on the stand by stipulating who can or can't be called by defense on that basis alone.
I don't think judge Walton is an idiot, and doesn't realize that. Libby's fate in political show trial shouldn't depend on 12 jurors in political environments where the deck is stacked against him. Libby just got dealt a couple of jokers from the rest of the deck.
I sure hope they're wrong of course....... I'd like to see Prissy Chrissy and Shuster do at least 4 1/2 years apiece for journalistic fraud and malpractice..... what charlatan bozos those two have proved themselves to be.
I would have no problem with that! I don't watch them, but when I'm surfing sometimes I see them, and I wish they would stuff their mouths with a hot potato and put a sack over their heads. Chris can't talk without spitting, and Shuster has no business being in front of a camera...his nostrils flare, his eyes look blank, and his mouth turns down at the corners making him look like a snobby nose dunce; which he happens to be!
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.