Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Defense Misled Court About Libby
AP via Brietbart via Drudge ^ | 2/14/2007 | Matt Apuzzo

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.

___


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; cialeak; getbush; libby; partisanwitchhunt; plame; showtrial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last
To: Suzy Quzy

I hate to say this...but I don't know either.

At first I thought it might stand for Middle East Intelligence Briefing..

But, in one instance it was used in a sentence as if MIB is a person...

Therefore, I can't figure it out.

I just copy and pasted it from firedoglake.com...


41 posted on 02/14/2007 1:37:05 PM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
I agree with you, I wasn't saying the judge was right. To me the whole issue that Libby is trying to portray is that he was a busy man with important things and Joe Wilson was not important to him. It seems logical what the defense has done by calling people that knew what was going on in Libbys work. But for some reason the judge seems upset that Libby has changed his mind about testifying. It seems like the judge wants to punish Libby and make him testify as to which items were actually more important. Of course then Libby would be subject to cross and Fitz will be unmerciful to him. I would want to avoid that too, I think the judge is wrong.

There is no obligation to be fair to the prosecution, only the defense is entitled to fairness.(IMO)
In liberal DC I think that Libby never had a chance for a fair trial. With the looks of the actions of the judge and the questions the jury has asked I would say it does not look good for Libby, however, it only takes one jury with common sense and stamina to deadlock.
42 posted on 02/14/2007 1:37:24 PM PST by JAKraig (Joseph Kraig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

Men in Black...means???


43 posted on 02/14/2007 1:39:17 PM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth; Suzy Quzy


"Men in Black" was my lame attempt at a joke.

MIB is something to do with the VP's daily intel briefing but I'm not sure what the 'M' stands for....


44 posted on 02/14/2007 1:40:40 PM PST by Enchante (Chamberlain Democrats embraced by terrorists and America-haters worldwide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
"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..."

What an idiotic thing for a judge, of all people, to say! Shows he doesn't have even a basic understanding of American jurisprudence.

You're right when you say:

Reality Check: The Governmnet isn't ON TRIAL! Only the defendent is on trial, so of course only the defendent has trial rights. The Government has a responsibility to follow the law and behave ethically...

This tit-for-tat move to deny Libby his right to have relevant evidence admitted is unbelievably petty --on the part of both the judge and Fitzgerald.

These two are clearly in cahoots to railroad Libby.

45 posted on 02/14/2007 1:42:11 PM PST by shhrubbery! (Max Boot: Joe Wilson has sold more whoppers than Burger King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Mistrial.


46 posted on 02/14/2007 1:43:49 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

I hope I'm wrong but I think Scooter's toast.


47 posted on 02/14/2007 1:44:29 PM PST by Riptides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enchante; Suzy Quzy

LOL...whew!!

That makes me feel a whole lot better.

I thought I was really dense.

I guess our guesses are as good as any then...hehehe


48 posted on 02/14/2007 1:47:28 PM PST by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

I've been predicting a mistrial, but a hung jury would be even worse.


49 posted on 02/14/2007 1:51:54 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
...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.

So, Russert is a liar. And yeah, that matters.
Even I - - no law schooler - - am aware that witnesses are not allowed lawyers with them when they testify before a grand jury.

50 posted on 02/14/2007 1:52:20 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Let she who has perfect timing cast the first stone! LOL

I'm not sure I can find the blog... ;-)


51 posted on 02/14/2007 1:54:37 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez (Jack Bauer wears Tony Snow pajamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

Morning Intelligence Briefing, I believe


52 posted on 02/14/2007 1:56:43 PM PST by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Well, this is annoying.

In a criminal case, the court is usually inclined to bend over just a little backwards for the defendant because of the enormous power of the state. Not if you are a Republican and a member of this administration apparently. Different rules.

This is infuriating, and Walton is an idiot. He is NOT supposed to set a case up for appeal.


53 posted on 02/14/2007 1:58:51 PM PST by Bahbah (.Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

LOL Look closely at this pen....


54 posted on 02/14/2007 2:00:05 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez (Jack Bauer wears Tony Snow pajamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

Military Intell Briefing?


55 posted on 02/14/2007 2:01:08 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez (Jack Bauer wears Tony Snow pajamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

The defense rested. The prosecution will put on no rebuttal--here are some FDL tidbits before Ct ended today:

FDL:
On Eckenrode:

Former Inspector John Eckenrode,

1) Eckenrode was Special Agent in FBI in charge of the investigation concerning possible unauthorized disclosure of Plame's affiliation with CIA

2) On November 14 and 24, Eckenrode spoke by telephone with Russert

3) Eckenrode prepared an FD 302 report, November 24 report that recorded info that Russert provided. Eckenrode intended it to be accurate report.

4) November 24 report states that Russert was requested to refrain from reporting on FBI's questions and he agreed to request

5) Report describes Russert's account of Libby conversation. Russert advised he recalled at least one, possibly two conversations with Libby

6) Report states in part, "Russert does not recall stating to Libby anything about the wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson. Although he could not rule out the possibility that he had such an exchange. Russert was at a loss to remember it. He believes that this would have been something he would remember.

Wells; The defense rests"

don't know if any of the impeachment evidence came in--but if this stipulation doesn't establish a basis for reasonable doubt, what does?

As for the JUly 12 JM-Libby conversation:

"Walton: When this trial started, I described the charges against Libby. I told you count one alleges that Libby falsely testified concerning conversations with 3 reporters. now, however, this trial has progressed to the point and one of those allegations, that being that Libby lied about conversation with Judy on June 12, 2003

Fitz July 12

Walton That allegation must be dismissed by you. This cannot influence your verdict regarding remaining charges. Count One is based solely on allegatoin that Libby falsely testified concerning 2 reporters, Russert and Cooper. You may consider evidence relating to July 12 Judy conversation to consider whether govt proved allegation beyond reasonable doubt."


And big bad Cheney:

"Walton You've heard evidence about NIE. THere is no dispute that POTUS has power to declassify previously authorized classified materials and disclose it topress. At least by July 8, it was declassified. Govt does not contend he did improper concerning those conversations after July 8 when he leaked NIE."





56 posted on 02/14/2007 2:04:07 PM PST by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez

No, morning intelligence briefing, me thinks.

:-)


57 posted on 02/14/2007 2:04:08 PM PST by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ScaniaBoy

Thanks.

I looked at the pen too often. LOL ;-)


58 posted on 02/14/2007 2:06:38 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez (Jack Bauer wears Tony Snow pajamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: fschmieg
I agree. After re-reading the testimony Libby should go free. To me it comes down to Libby's memory and Russert's memory. If Libby goes to jail because of a deference in memories of what was said it will be a great travesty of justice.
59 posted on 02/14/2007 2:09:14 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez

pinz,

can you imagine coming to work and be presented with the information load shown in #28?

I would have fainted.

:^)


60 posted on 02/14/2007 2:09:16 PM PST by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson