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.
___
The reason you probably got vapors...is from having to read the testimony on your head...because I put the afternoon and morning sessions backwards!!!
LOL
If Libby gets a list like that....just think what Pres. Bush gets!!
That thought is quite.......daunting.
One reason I despise the fact that the judge ruled out any "memory expert" testimony is that I know that my brain functions much like what has been attributed to Scooter Libby. It is a REAL FACT for people like me that Scooter's testimony could well be mixed up by trying to attach a name (i.e., Russert) to statements that are recalled very accurately but maybe someone else said them so many months ago. I generally have great recall for ideas and arguments, and exact quotations in relation to those ideas. However, I very frequently have no recollection of specific people in relation to those ideas and arguments and quotes. In other words, I understand exactly how Scooter got into this predicament because I do the same thing all the time (fortunately not with any legal jeopardy!). When I used to work in a very busy office, I frequently got mixed up about WHO said WHAT (even though I had very detailed recall of much or all that was said, by SOMEONE. If you asked me questions about work conversations held several months or years ago, I could provide all sorts of detail about them but would get mixed up on WHO said what. In fact, this just happened to me today (fortunately on a trivial matter).
So many people believe that the Constitution and amendments afford rights to the government. The Federal Government has duties and responsibilities. The people have rights, priveleges, and freedoms.
Yes, what you describe is quite common.
Another thing that is common is that people add details to vague memories, which of course makes them much more unreliable.
What is very uncommon is that you suddenly start to remember things better and better until you are absolutely certain what you said and not said 3 years later but wasn't able to say at all for certain a couple of months after the event (think RUSSERT).
I'm thoroughly confused now and don't have any idea how this is going to turn out. I wish Fitzgerald would be disbarred for this travesty of justice he has pursued.
I agree with you...
I think all of us use our own "triggers" for memory...and I am sure there are other instances that mask those triggers...illness or other things.
A memory expert could perhaps point these things out...IMHO>
Crazy! I also was dumbfounded that they are willing to allow classified info to be presented IF Libby testifies, but somehow it can't be presented if he DOESN'T testify. The 'you have a right to remain silent' (by not testifying) now means 'we will not let you defend yourself unless you talk.
Morning Intelligence Briefing?
I agree, but with the selective way justice is meted out to conservatives I wouldn't be surprised if the judge allowed Ditzferald to appeal a not guilty verdict. 'What, double Jepordy? That don't apply to conservatives,' the judge will declare.
I think he does, but I can't remember his name.
Wouldn't that be something. Nothing surpises to the lows democrats will go, especially in prosecuting non-crimes against others that do not have their party affiliation for political purposes.
I thought judges were not supposed to have ANY understanding as to who is to testify.
LOL I'm late, I'm late! ;-)
LOL Or maybe we could just look through that big mirror! ;-D
Maybe you suffer from what I have........CRAFT....Can't Remember A Freaking Thing.
Fitzgerald is a disgrace.
He knew, or should have known, on Day One and after a couple of phone calls that no crime had been committed in the "leaking" of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame's name.
We also know now that Fitzgerald found out very early on that it was Armitage who was the initial source of the "leak". Yet Fitzgerald wasted millions of taxpayer dollars by continuing an "investigation" into an alleged crime he knew never happened, until he was finally able to grab what Mark Levin referred to as "low lying fruit" - - a crappy, shaky, irrelevant indictment of a lower level guy that arose only through the process of the investigation. And Fitzgerald only came up with this silly "low lying fruit" indictment in order to justify his costly, drawn-out, pathetic "investigation".
Justice Department corruption doesn't get any worse than Fitzgerald unless you count Judge Walton, who was apparently too much of a coward to laugh Fitzgerald and his crappy indictment out of his courtroom.... on Day One.
LOL...I love that.
I was going to say that I will have to remember that one but........
LOL
I just heard Sissy Chrissy and David Shuster talking about the trial.
According to the two of them...Libby will be going down for 4 1/2 years...and they "can't believe he is that loyal to Cheney, to take a prison sentence that long for him".
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.