Libby's Lawyers Seek Papers on Plame's CIA Employment

Washington Post ^ | 2/1/06 | Carol D. Leonnig

[frankjr]

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff urged a court yesterday to force a prosecutor to turn over CIA records indicating whether former CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment was classified, saying the answer is not yet clear.

The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations.

Defense lawyers argued in court papers that it is crucial to determine whether Plame was not an undercover operative at the time Libby was discussing her with members of the media, and whether little or no damage was done to national security when her identity was publicly disclosed.

If either is true, the defense argued, it will "challenge the prosecution's contention that Mr. Libby has reason to lie to the FBI and the grand jury about his conversations with reporters in July 2003."

[Cboldt]

I just don't know what motive would be if he did not believe she was classifed.

See my #14, above. It seems he knew for a fact that her status was not "covert."

"Covert" being shorthand for "Nobody but you and some in the CIA know that you and the CIA have any relationship whatsoever." A janitor in the CIA cannot be "covert," but his personnel file is classified.

[Cboldt]

It certainly would diminish his motive to do so.

It would change the motive. If Plame was in fact covert, and Libby knew her status was "covert agent," then Libby doesn't want to be admit braking the "out the covert agent law."

But he may feel just as much urgency under any one or combination of motives I hypothecized in #14, above. In short, absence of "covert status" does not result in "absence of reason to lie to investigators."

[colorado tanker]

I agree that this material certainly should be turned over. It's very interesting that Fitz has resisted turning over what seems to be clearly discoverable Brady material. Fitz may not be the "straight arrow" we've been led to believe??

[Cboldt]

You introduce the very common "investigation is bogus, so lying to investigators can't be a crime" defense.

Fitz risks the ramifications of not checking for "covert" first, but I can understand the preference to exit the process with a "no report, no crime committed" without giving a reason.

And Libby risked being caught telling a lie to investigators, when the truth would have resulted in a "no report."

The Judge is having a hearing this Friday to discuss the various discovery motions.

[the Real fifi]

It doesn't entirely knock it out of consideration--but add that to the rest of his request--documentations that dawn to dusk he worked on far more critical national security matters which were classified--the case against him looks weaker and weaker, and I think his request will be granted.

Then add to the mix the bias of the reporters and evidence he has sought that they knew about Plame before he did,that there own testimony has mack truck size holes in it, and I wouldn't give good odds for his being convicted.

[angkor]

"Fitz may not be the "straight arrow" we've been led to believe??"

The day he gave his speech and repeatedly claimed that Plame's job was "classified", I knew he was crooked.

"Covert" as defined by the Identities Act and "classified" as used in the colloquial are two entirely different animals.

But Fitz was clearly trying to conflate the two meanings.

[colorado tanker]

Fitz's press conference was the most unprofessional thing I've ever seen a prosecutor do. I hope Libby's team takes him apart hammer and tongs.

[angkor]

You introduce the very common "investigation is bogus, so lying to investigators can't be a crime" defense.

Actually, it's a "what were they investigating" defense.

Fitzgerald was operating out of the DoJ office that is specifically designed to handle matters dealing with classified leaks, etc. I have forgotten the name of that unit, but it has been reported and is the one office in DoJ that handles cases such as this Plame matter.

Now, it simply seems ludicrous and implausible that the first step in the Plame matter would *not* have been to determine whether there had or hadn't been a breach of the Identities Act, because to my understanding that was the basis for the investigation.

So the first question would be, "was Plame covert, or not". If the answer was "no" - and all we're heard including Fitzgerald's evasiveness indicates that this was the answer - then on what basis was the investigation being conducted? How does a prosecutor justifiably continue to investigate a crime which has not been committed?

[atomicweeder]

Also there are tens of thousands of people in the DC area with "classified" jobs and positions

The "job" I got last night, and the "position" of the stripper, are both CLASSIFIED. My wife is NOT cleared to receive the information. :-)

[half-cajun]

"Fitzgerald will claim that Plame's status was not pertinent to Libby's alleged perjury (which they'll say is a standalone matter), and protest the records acquisition."

Doesn't the perjury have to concern a matter that was "material". Can't Libby say that if Plame wasn't a covert agent, then anything that he may have said to investigators, even if it was a lie, was not material and thus there is no crime. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

[Cboldt]

but add that to the rest of his request--documentations that dawn to dusk he worked on far more critical national security matters which were classified--the case against him looks weaker and weaker, and I think his request will be granted.

He's looking to muddy the waters, which is a good defense tactic, IMO.

The timeline is fairly compact though. Just from memory, he contacted the CIA in June, then gave the alleged false testimony to investigators in October the same year. What he is "forgetting" to tell investigators isn't ehre he heard it first - it;s that he bother to take the personal initiative to call the CIA and ask, for himself. In other words, he's not hung up on a timing matter, he's hung up on a "forgot altogether that I contacted the CIA about her status."

Then add to the mix the bias of the reporters and evidence he has sought that they knew about Plame before he did,that there own testimony has mack truck size holes in it, and I wouldn't give good odds for his being convicted.

This isn't a leak case, so who knew about Plame first doesn't matter. I'm don't see any aspect of their testimony (have you read the indictment?) that would turn the case against Libby. At worst, it makes all of the liars - but it doesn't get to the question of Libby's personal inquiry to the CIA, which (allegedly) he never disclosed to investigators.

Fitzgerald is playing this case seriously, from the reports and court filings that I've read. We should know in a week or so what the disposition of the trial judge is. Either way they go (for or against Libby), I fully expect the evidentiary motion decisions to be appealed. Fitz wants the narrow case, focused on the matter of Libby's failure to dislcose his personal inquiry to the CIA. Libby wants to drag the reporters and Plame's "covert" status into trial.

[angkor]

n short, absence of "covert status" does not result in "absence of reason to lie to investigators."

So you posit that (a) Fitzgerald also didn't know whether Plame was or was not "covert" according to the Identies Act, and (b) if she was not, that he should have continued investigating a crime which didn't exist?

That's rich.

[The South Texan]

The media and their Rat friends are going to rue the day that they started pushing this. Sounds like Libby's lawyers are doing everything right to expose that this case is nothing but a media driven fraud.

[Cboldt]

So the first question would be, "was Plame covert, or not". If the answer was "no" - and all we're heard including Fitzgerald's evasiveness indicates that this was the answer - then on what basis was the investigation being conducted? How does a prosecutor justifiably continue to investigate a crime which has not been committed?

Libby should bring charges of malicious prosecution then.

[angkor]

Doesn't the perjury have to concern a matter that was "material".

Not a lawyer, but that seems correct.

In fact I think this is the way Libby's team will squash this case.

[Cboldt]

absence of "covert status" does not result in "absence of reason to lie to investigators."

So you posit that (a) Fitzgerald also didn't know whether Plame was or was not "covert" according to the Identies Act, and (b) if she was not, that he should have continued investigating a crime which didn't exist?

My posit above has to do with Libby's head, not Fitzgerald's head.

[dirtboy]

The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations.

Fitz is gonna rue the day that he claimed that Plame's CIA employment was classified and that her employer was not common knowledge.

[frankjr]

"Fitz is gonna rue the day that he claimed that Plame's CIA employment was classified and that her employer was not common knowledge."

Yep. Just liked he did when at the press conference Fitz said Libby was the first known to tell a journalist about Plame...and then a week or so later Bob Woodward comes forwards and says "um Fitz, someone else told me about Plame earlier."

[angkor]

Libby should bring charges of malicious prosecution then.

Why, yes, he should.

The investigation produces not a single violation of the Identities Act. Not one.

Fitzgerald uses his one-hour press conference to conflate the meaning of "covert" and "classified", and to dissemble on whether there was any actionable crime.

Plame was clearly working domestically. No one has asserted that she held covert status in accordance with the Identities Act.

I think this will sink.

[the Real fifi]

We;ll have to agree to disagree. I think Libby will be able to show that he was in thousands of discussions over this period of time with officials and reporters and most concerned far more weighty matters than this, and that to charge him with deliberately lying about such a nothingburger is preposterous. Especially so since there was nothing secret about the matters in these discussions and no national security stuff involved. And then add the bias and foreknowledge of the he said/he said reporters on the other end of the conversation---Pheh. Stupid case.