"Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"
Posted on 05/25/2006 5:21:48 PM PDT by STARWISE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW)
v. )
) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as “Scooter Libby” )
REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL
The Government submits the following in reply to the “Response of I. Lewis Libby to Government’s Response to Court’s Inquiry Regarding News Articles The Government Intends to Offer as Evidence at Trial.” (“Response”).
INTRODUCTION
In his Response, defendant makes only one new argument in support of his claim of entitlement to broad discovery of materials relating to potential witnesses, as well as to others employed by the government agencies that employed those witnesses.
Defendant asserts that, by arguing the relevance of the Vice President’s handwritten annotations of the July 6, 2003, New York Times Op Ed by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (the “Wilson Op Ed”), the government has broadly acknowledged that the mental state of persons other than the defendant is relevant to defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Therefore, defendant argues, the government cannot logically resist discovery of documents reflecting the views of other potential witnesses concerning Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger.
Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, the relevance of the Vice President’s annotations of the Wilson Op Ed is not remotely comparable to the purported relevance of the documents defendant seeks in his Third Motion to Compel.
As the defendant admitted in his grand jury testimony, he communicated extensively with the Vice President regarding the Wilson Op Ed during the relevant period, and received direction from the Vice President regarding his response to the Wilson Op Ed.
The Vice President’s handwritten notes on a clipping of the Wilson Op Ed, which reflect his views concerning Mr. Wilson and his wife, are evidence of the views the Vice President communicated during the conversations that the Vice President and his chief of staff had during the period immediately following the publication of the Wilson Op Ed, and corroborate other evidence regarding these communications, which are central to the government’s proof that defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury.
Accordingly, the Vice President’s annotations of the Wilson Op Ed are uniquely relevant to the issues of this case.
No comparable nexus exists with respect to any views concerning Mr. Wilson and his wife that may have been held or expressed to persons other than the defendant by the other individuals concerning whom defendant seeks discovery in the Third Motion to Compel.
None of these individuals were defendant’s immediate superior.
None of them directed defendant’s actions with respect to a response to the Wilson Op Ed.
In fact, defendant’s relevant contacts with former Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, cited by defendant as illustrating the relevance of the state of mind of others, were limited to defendant’s request for, and receipt of, information concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip in May and June 2003.
Shorn of its efforts to misconstrue the government’s argument concerning the relevancy of the Vice President’s annotations to the Wilson Op Ed, defendant’s Response amounts to a reiteration.
1 The government does not purport to recite here all the reasons why the annotated Wilson Op Ed is admissible at trial as this issue arises in the context of a discovery motion, not a motion in limine of his previously-stated position that he needs broad discovery in order to help him prepare crossexaminations of government witnesses (including by demonstrating bias), show the context of the defendant’s alleged crimes, and demonstrate his client’s state of mind.
As the government previously has argued, defendant’s expansive discovery requests are inconsistent with applicable case law and amount to a demand to conduct a fishing expedition through the government’s files.
Fitz is perpetrating a fraud on the American Public.
Weak, weak, weak. Fitz has painted himself into a corner here and he knows it.
And Fitz whining about a fishing expedition is rich, to say the least.
"Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!"
And that makes just all kinds of sense.
Fitz's response is a baseball analogy...don'tcha see it?? You got sand in your eyes?? :-)
Thanks for the ping, STARWISE.
These responses are pathetic. Fitz is arguing in circles just to feed the leaks and misleading articles by the VIPS' reporter pets.
When will the judge be ruling on any of these motions? Doesn anyone know?
Pinz
Fitzy is just plain old nuts and about on par with Nifong, in his mordant stupidity in trying to continue with this case.
So, is he calling Madame Cloe to attest to everyone's state of mind? Or is he just bringing in the Magic 8 Ball?
Trial is next spring, I believe, so we'll be seeing all his happy poppycock for awhile, as the law-errrrrs volley back 'n forth.
BTTT
LOL!!!!
The Vice President’s handwritten notes on a clipping of the Wilson Op Ed, which reflect his views concerning Mr. Wilson and his wife, are evidence of the views the Vice President communicated during the conversations that the Vice President and his chief of staff had during the period immediately following the publication of the Wilson Op Ed, and corroborate other evidence regarding these communications, which are central to the government’s proof that defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury.
I'm out of breath after reading this. What writing! What hogwash!
I had no idea it was so difficult to get information out of the government, especially considering they think they have such an excellent case against Libby. Three motions to compel means they are causing Libby's attorney fees to escalate, it's probably $20,000 for each one of these three motions, and maybe more. Of course, the government has bottomless funds, we're paying Fitz and his minions to attempt to keep Libby from being able to defend himself.
I don't know, maybe it's me, but if my case were so good, I don't think I'd be averse to giving my documentation to the other side. Wonder what Fitz has to hide?
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.