Posted on 03/20/2006 7:57:28 AM PST by Cboldt
I got to wondering about that with an open mind. How the heck could Fitz have gone looking for a leaker without first proving or finding there was an actionable leak?
But here's Tenet prodding the DoJ to "get on the case," the President saying "this is a serious leak," etc. - as well as what I think is the assumption that CIA won't forward a referral that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a conviction on. I blame Fitz more for naivety than for flubbing the obvious. He made a mistake at the indictment announcement presser where he made the leak into a big deal. He should have focused on lying to investigators as a deal, and left it at that.
Fitz is still dogging Miller to cough up her sources and connections relating to the Holy Land Foundation case.
So far, Fitz has been responsive. He doesn't necessarily give the defense what they want, but he's been arguing his case in writing before the Court.
This motion of Libby's will go through the same process - both sides have their say, then the judge issues a ruling and order. Judge Walton did that with the Presidential Daily Briefings (PDB) request of Libby.
There are a number of lines of argument in play ...
Fitzgerald is playing "Calvinball" (the rules keep changing as the game goes on). As far as he's concerned, nothing about the actual leak still matters...the only thing that matters now is Libby and Russert differed in what they said, therefore Libby was lying. All he needs to do is to assemble a jury of 12 Bush-hating Democrats and get them to find Libby guilty. Truth and justice are irrelevant.
I want to see the whole Wilson conspiracy finally exposed. I still believe since he went to Niger to "investigate" information most likely gather via "HUMINT" his disclosures were illegal. When Val was "outed" the rats ran with it.
Almost like the Dems discussing censuring Bush about the NSA program when they illegally leaked Top Secret SCI.
THIS is an outstanding article.
(( ping ))
Is Libby paying for all this lawyering ?
Plame game....ping
No, he needs a judge that will allow him to keep all the evidence that destroys his case out of the courtroom.
I don't think he'll be able to do it. I think Libby's lawyers are going to eat him for lunch, and the case will dissolve before it ever gets to trial. It's all smoke.
"Good strategy on Libby's part, to make the trial into a leak case."
Exactly, the charge is Libby didn't get his story straight about conversations with journalists some months prior. Sort of a memory test with the booby prize a felony conviction--way unfair!
Responsive perhaps. Forthcoming, hardly. Helpful - not.
Kinda typical of a prosecutor who has a weak case.
Words and music by Scooter Libby. From a true story about a D.C. trainwreck and the half-cocked engineer who failed to brake in time.
Sounds like the quotation imputed to Colin Powell matches pretty closely to Andrea Mitchell's statement that it was widely known in Washington that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA.
I wonder if Colin used the same phraseology in talking to journalists that he did in talking in the White House situation room.
The documents sought by this motion are just as important to Mr. Libby’s defense. Here, we request documents concerning former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 68-1 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 5 of 39 2 trip to Niger, and his wife’s involvement with that trip, ie:2. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan by any government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson. 3. All documents reflecting Mr. Wilson’s communications with officials at the State Department or other government agencies concerning his trip to Niger or the “sixteen words.”
The prosecution has an interest in continuing to overstate the significance of Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. Doing so makes it easier to suggest that Mr. Libby would not have forgotten or confused his conversations concerning Ms. Wilson and has therefore intentionally lied. The defense has requested: 2. All documents or information concerning the identity of any government official outside the CIA who was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA.
The defense's case:
Mr. Libby had no intent to lie because he did not believe that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified. Second, Mr. Libby was not part of a conspiracy to harm Mr. Wilson by disclosing his wife’s CIA affiliation and thus had no reason to cover up such involvement. Third, Mr. Libby did not believe anyone who worked closely with him had done anything wrong and thus had no motive to lie to protect anyone else.
David Barrett, has spent more than a decade and $21 million investigating Cisneros and he's still at it!
Ken Starr spent $47 million investigating the Clintons and Lawrence Walsh spent $48 million investigating the Reagan administration!!!
Don't take this personally, but I am always amused by the fact that almost everyone who couldn't care less about something phrases it in the same terms as you did. Am I wrong to say that if a person cared nothing about something that the proper way of expressing it would be:
"I couldn't care less"?
I think Fitzgerald may be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. I believe Justice Dept guidelines say that the first step in such an investigation is determining whether any crime was committed. If there was no crime, there should have been no investigation. There appears to have been no crime, and Fitzgerald should have drawn that conclusion.
'could care less', 'couldn't care less' - irregardless!
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.