Posted on 02/01/2006 8:25:40 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Do we yet know who referred this for investigation? Tenet?
I assume then that you assert that Libby's statements are not material, and are not deliberately false.
Going for the "meaning of 'is'" defense? The indictment is clear on these points, and earlier posts discuss the political and personal motives for avoidance of being a known, legal leaker.
(b)To find obstruction, you must show that the defendant deliberately impeded a material line of inquiry. On this I find the indictment lacking two out of two
Not material, I assume on account of Plame not being covert. Good luck with that. Likewise good luck that Libby "accidentally" or "forgetfully" omitted noting his inquiry to the CIA. C'mon - if you know something FOR A FACT, do you forget that?
(c) If I am wrong, and the lines of inquiry are material and proper, I find it at least as likely that the reporters recollections are wrong as that Libby was deliberately lying ...
Demonstrating that you don't comprehend the point of my previous post. The contest is NOT between the memory of Libby and the memory of reporters.
I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem there's something fundamentally wrong and askew when an alleged perjury is charged by a prosecutor who also KNOWS FOR A FACT that he is investigating a crime that did not occur.
Fitzgerald knew from the very outset of his investigation whether Plame was or was not covert, and he knew it for a fact under color of the Identities Act, and from there he proceeded on what looks like an entrapment hunt.
I cannot believe that the law allows this sort of behavior, because it is just fundamentally wrong on its face.
Was this the thing Bush was supposed to get impeached over before the current thing or was it some other impeachable thing?
I think Bush was supposed to get impeached for eavesdropping on terrorists who live on Downing Street and have panties on their heads. Something like that. I think there was a memo about it.
Is it possible that Libby first heard about Plame from reporters, then had the information confirmed by the CIA?
Sure. But even if so, that wouldn't change the outcome if the allegations in the indictment are true.
"What do you think is up with Rove's status in this investigation?"
My guess is Fitzgerald's staff is busy enough with Libby's case, and Rove is on the back burner.
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.