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.
___
It is not a question of Libby entering "reports that he wrote". The question is whether there will be evidence that Libby was involved in a wide range of important domestic and national security issues that made the Joe Wilson matter pale in comparison. Libby was focused on things much more important than a local DC blowhard spouting off.
That is perfectly proper evidence that does not require Libby to verify it. But the judges wants Libby to subject himself to cross examination.
The trial has actually been a disaster for the prosecution, with every witness it called being riddled to pieces. Nevertheless, I have always considered a conviction to be a foregone conclusion--and I still think it's 90% for conviction, and 10% for a hung jury. The reversal will come on appeal--1 or 2 years from now.
Hey, wells is a DemocRAT-ick....I wouldn't expect a win for the Scootmiester.
Thanks for putting these here, Sleuthy.
Makes it easy to catch up on the case today. :-)
former Senator from Tennessee said it best: "It is a travesty!".
This Judge is out-Ito-ing Lance Ito of OJ fame. He is a fool. He expresses the ultimate bias of claiming the trial should be as "fair" for the government as it is for the accused. What a moron! Has he not heard of the Bill of Rights? These were limitations on government and recognition that certain inalienable rights, as endowed by the Creator, remained vested in the People.
Scooter - Trial PING HERE~~!!
Thanks, sleuthie !! You're doing great ..happy hearts, everyone .. ;)
Another idiot judge trying to make a name for himself in the public's eye. Sheesh!
3:26
Something happened funny. The whole court room was laughing.
Walton: Good afternoon, Happy Valentine's Day.
One of the jurors is saying something, but it's not celar what. Everyone seems to have a smily face on. One of the jurors was reading a poem, apparently.
Walton: Thank you very much, you've been a very attentive jury and everyone appreciates it.
Cline: We'd like to read a stipulation.
If called as witnesses Mr Libby's MIB's would testify as follows.
1) During MIB on June 14 Libby was presented with info concern
bomb diffused
police arrest indiv
explosions
E African extremist network
Info on possible AQ attack in US
COncern about specific vulnerability to terrorist attack
Proposed ME plan, Israeli military action
Country's security affecting AQ
International org's position concerning country's nuke program
Leader of country enhances position through reform
Iraq's porous borders present security threat
Demonstrations in Iran turn violent
13 I'll turn to in a moment
Israeli offer of cease fire to Palestineans
Memorandum assessing Iranian' pres' view on terrorism
Problems in leadership in PLO
Foreign media analysis concerning Egyptian treatment on Paletinian conflict
Media, opposition of Isreali public to attacks
Info on Egypt process ME peace process
Palestinian groups and Israel
Measure for overcoming challenges in last item
Constraints on Israeli military
Saddam HUssein published on website
Memo in Iraqi WMD
Housing shortage in IRaq
Info on 1920 Mesopotamia and insurgency on moden-day Iraq
POtential effect of improved governance in IRaq
Libby requested several items be returned on 16 June
Libby requested additional info on 7 and 14, both with related to ME.
Turning to terror threat list:
1) Concern over possible suicide info to hujack airplane by AQ linked group
2) Concern about terrorists providing support for business transaction by AQ
3) Potential suicide attacks against US forces in IRaq
4) Potential terrorist attacks against Americans in Karbala by unspecified means
5) Potential attack in Ethiopia
6) Potential attack in Nairobi
7) Potential attack in Kabul Afghanistan and Pakistan [sorry, lost the countiing here]
7) Concern over surveillance in Beirut and attack against embassy vehicles
7b) Unspecified terror attack against unspecified
8) Potential attack in Budapest
8b) Potential attacks in Kabul by unspecified group
9) Video taping in US university
10) Turkish and Pakistani extremists.
Cline If called briefers would also testify that between May 2003 and March 2004 Libby's intell briefings included:
Info concerning terrorist threats including AQ and HEzbollah
Homeland security preparedness
Info on foreign countries getting nukes, including IRan and NK
Monitoring individuals, including AQ Khan
Progress of war on Iraq, specifically incl troop strength and new govt in Iraq
volatile situation in ME
Intense disagreement between Turkey and US when Turkish soldiers taken prisoner
Security issues in Liberia when president deposed in early July 2003
If called as witnesses, they woudl further testify that they did not know what LIbby did with the info, what he did with the rest of the day, and it was not part of his job responsibilities to know this info.
3:39
Wells up to read stipulation on FBI Chief Fuhrman,
FBI section chief, if called to testify would testify
1) Fuhrman section chief in FBI. ON Feb 12, 2004, together with attorneys with S interviewed David Addington
2) Fuhrman prepared report, Feb 26 report, recorded info that Addington provided
3) Feb 26 report describes account of conversation, Addington advised that it took place in anteroom in WH, Addington did not remember exact date, between 7/6 and 7/12 2003. During conversation, Addington asked about CIA contract issue and declassification
4) Addington advised that Libby made general inquiry about CIA's relationship. Does not reflect that Libby made any reference to spouse or wife, either when Libby asked question or at other time.
3:42
Jeffress, 3 newspaper articles, produced from files of Jenny Mayfield. Hey, looks like we'll finally get to see Cliff May!!
Fitz; Don't object to any of them
J I stand corrected, they were produced under Libby's own certification.
Clifford May article, September 29, [This is May's article saying that he always knew this.] I had been told about Plame. From someone who formerly worked in govt. [Is this that lobbyist who talks to Novak on a daily basis]
J Puts up another article
WSJ [we're hitting all the conservative specials, aren't we??]
We've been knocking our heads to figure out how alleged outing suddently blossomed into scandal.
The political goals must be paramount here bc substance so flimsy. Passed in 1982 as reaction against Agee and other hard-left types. All a policy dispute over Iraq. First outing, Mr Wilson did to himself.
This is the context in which Novak told. This is something public had right to know. When an intell operative claims President sent soldiers to die for a lie. Wilson not an agent in field but ensconced at Langley HQ. It remains far from clear that lie violated.
j Puts up another article
National Review, Leak Proof. October 27, 2003.
DC obsessed with 16 words
Threatened to bring down presidency.
British intell believes it still. BC Wilson concluded that no uranium had been acquired. Admin handled flap badly.
Nor did the CIA take many steps to concel her identity when columnist Robert Novak contacted the CIA about the leak, it confirmed her employment while asking him, mildly, not to report her name. [this is underlined]
THe CIA's nonchalance about the leak back in July is relevant to that evaluation. If keeping Mrs Wilson's wife out of newspapers, maybe someone should have told Wilson not to publish op-ed.
Walton: I'm going to give this instruction apply these limiting instructions. These articles have been admitted have not been admitted for truth. You may not assume that anything said in articles is true or consider anything as establishing facts.
I'm going to start a new thread.
Posted in CIA Leak Case, Libby Trial Live Blog | Spotlight | 135 Comments
February 14th, 2007
Republican Failures
By Christy Hardin Smith @ 10:14 am
Gee I have reasonable doubt about everything in this case
I just added some more...out of order again...sheesh.
Luckily, the person doing the posting of the testimony is putting a TIME between some testimony.
Please forgive me...I don't understand how that website does their posting of new threads!! LOL
No Libby, no Cheney just may mean Scooter's lawyers are confident the prosecution has failed to make its case.
thats what NY Times said last night
Fitz doesn't have a wife. Or kids.
It appears the judge thinks he had a deal to deprive Libby of his 5th amendment rights. Isn't it against the law for the government to deprive one of the right to stay silent and not incriminate yourself. How can that be defended in the Supreme Court an arguement?
Guess you just read the junk in the main stream media. They don't even understand the trial and misreport what happened each day. It actually did go quite well for Libby. I have read every day of testimony from beginning to end. Lots there for reasonable doubt.
I feel soooo stupid...what is MIB?
John Hannah's testimony yesterday firmly established the constellation of activity that Libby was dealing with. There is no way the jury could miss that.
MIB = "Men in Black"
mark for later!!
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.