Posted on 05/14/2006 9:45:13 AM PDT by the Real fifi
While the media focuses on handwritten notations by the Vice President on a newspaper article, there is much more to be gleaned from late Friday’s court filings in the Libby case. The spin says that damaging new evidence has surfaced. But the filings by Fitzgerald reveal how rapidly his case is sinking.
Discovery in legal cases is rather like playing the old game “Battleship” where you can surmise from your opponent’s responses to your blind probes where he is hiding his fleet. So you can sink it. Scooter Libby’s legal team is playing the game masterfully and as the latest filings late Friday show, Fitzgerald’s fleet is taking on a lot of water. News articles as evidence
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Bravo!
In the lake that they called GitcheeGoomie
But the defense can call him and Plame as a hostile witness if they want to and ask him embracing questions as to who he/she told and when.
Fitzgerald also wants to offer in redacted form 5 other articles: the May 6, 2003, NYT article by Kristof; ...
snip---
As to the first three articles, Wilson was the admitted or obvious source. Plame may as well have been a source for at least the Kristof piece.
snip --
What specific reasons are offered for presenting such prejudicial material to the jury?
Context “for evidence of conversations concerning Mr. Wilson’s wife” is claimed for the Kristof article – in which Wilson’s name and his wife’s are never mentioned.
From Kristof May 6, article.
I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged. b>
If Plame was either Kristof's source defined as the "person involved in the Niger caper" or "someone present at the meetings" Kristof knew Plame's identity in early May '03.
I don't see how Fitz could introduce that article without someone to verify it's authenticity.
I hope Kristof is called to the stand and asked point blank who the sources were. Then Wilson/Plame can be called to testify who they told (aside from Kristof).
(a) Libby says he'll call Plame and Wilson, but it is telling that the prosecutor will not and that he states he will not vouch for Wilson's credibility.
(2) Kristof clearly met Plame. Corn also obviously knew the pair well enough to know what kind of work she was doing. Neither was ever to my knowledge questioned by the prosecutor.
(3) Right now, neither of these reporters is being called as a witness. (If Plame is called, she can, of course, be asked about conversations with them.)
If Fitz uses redacted portions of their columns you can bet your bippy they will be called.
Well, we are talking cases in chief, not witnesses either side plans to call for impeachment purposes.
His case is taking on as many leaks as the Duke prosecutor's.
Ugh...you are supposed to fish with the bait...not EAT it!!
LOL
I'm sure the witness lists will be amended many times as new documents are thrown into the mix. But to keep their cards close to their vests the defense may well keep the journos as impeachment witnesses.
bttt
Ok. Then I'll wait with bated breath.
Cheers!
I’d say from the discovery proceedings to date, the Prosecution cannot and will not show that Plame was “classified,” that it cannot and will not show that disclosure of her identity caused any harm, that the person who did do that has not and will not be charged, that it has yet to show even potential harm, and that it is a far way from showing that Libby had the slightest motive to lie. And that the stench of selective prosecution is unmistakable.
Neither do the rage-filled neo-Facists on the right.
The ones you refer to are so far right that they circled and came back to the far left again. :)
Every time Osama sends us a tape,it's like(as El Rushbo observes),his"talking points"are IDENTICAL to those of The DemonRats!!!!!!!!!!
Its beginning to look like the Fitzgerald is not only listing, but that the November storms are early. It is hard to see that Fitzgerald is anything but a petty partisan with nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is hard to believe that his case is this flimsy, but there seems to be no other there, there.
Jason Leopold is like these "pyschics" who make a ton of predictions, then when one comes true, touts it as evidence he was on target.
The simple fact is that many people said Rove was probably about to be indicted before Leopold did. I suspect he makes stuff up, or uses sources of truly doubtful authenticity. I suspect his "sources" are the same ones everyone else reads online.
For those of you fluttering with fear about reports Rove was indicted:
:You haven't heard about it, but many reporters spent part of their weekend making calls to check out a report on a left-wing website, truthout.org , that Karl Rove has been indicted in the CIA leak investigation. The report, by someone named Jason Leopold, was posted yesterday and was headlined, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." It began:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.
It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.
The report came out of the blue on Saturday. Jason Leopold, who has written a memoir, entitled News Junkie, in which, according to the book's promotional material, he portrays himself as a writer "whose addictive tendencies led him from a life of drug abuse and petty crime to become an award-winning investigative journalist," has written wildly unreliable reports about the CIA leak affair before. But still, reporters of every stripe felt they had to check this one out.
So did I. I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. Part of our conversation:
Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.
So there seems to be nothing to the story, certainly nothing which any other reporter has seen fit to report. Which raises a question: What is going on here? The journalists who checked out the story, quite properly, did not repeat Leopold's bad information. But for some media blogger out there, it might be reasonable to ask: Where are these reports coming from?"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjQ4MzljZjIzYTFhNGY2NTIzMWY0MTRlZTI0MDEyYzM=
DU = misfits and rejects of every failed cause the left has presented the past 40 years. I can barely read their topic lines without barfing. Such utter nonsense.
It's basically a bunch of Cindy Sheehan nuts. Old feminazis.
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.