Re: A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak
- From: "A Brick in the Wall" <NoSpam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:13:07 -0500
"Horatio Fudruckerton" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:el070218hodulmrkjf9kf97lkv98jp451h@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:30:55 -0500, "Pookie"
<pookie18323@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
February 27, 2006, 8:08 a.m.
A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says it just doesn't matter.
Byron York
CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as
far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis
Libby
are concerned, it does not matter whether or not Valerie Wilson was a
covert
CIA agent when she was mentioned in the famous Robert Novak column of July
14, 2003. "We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie
Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald
continued - even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent - the
charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he
does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the
disclosure of Wilson's identity.
Fitzgerald's comments mark the evolution of the CIA leak case from a
matter
in which Fitzgerald investigated allegations that members of the Bush
administration outed covert agent Wilson as part of a plot to discredit
her
husband, Joseph Wilson - an alleged act about which Fitzgerald once said,
"the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was
done
to all of us" - into a case in which Valerie Wilson's job status and any
damage done by the disclosure of her identity have become irrelevant, at
least in Fitzgerald's view.
Wonder how much it cost the dim party to *get* fitzgerald ?
We do know it cost about 80 Million for Ken Starr's failed attempt to
overthrow the Gov't.
Friday's hearing was held to work out conflicts between the Libby defense
team and Fitzgerald over the type and amount of evidence that Fitzgerald
will allow Libby to have for his defense. Judge Reggie Walton ruled that
Libby is entitled to all of his own notes taken during the months before
and
after the Novak column. But Walton put off a decision on Libby's request
for
275 days' worth of the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB,
although it seems likely that request will ultimately fail. "If I order
this, it's going to sabotage the ability of this case to go forward,"
Walton
speculated, suggesting that the White House and the CIA would furiously
resist any request for the PDBs.
Liberals reduced to trying a man for perjury over a crime that was
never commited, and then only allowing him a *certain* defense.
Then came the question of Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA and the
damage,
if any, done by the disclosure of her identity. For months now, Fitzgerald
has resisted turning over any documents that might show that Wilson's
status
was classified, or any assessment of the damage resulting from disclosure.
At times, Fitzgerald has argued that he did not have the documents, that
the
documents were none of Libby's business, that the documents were
irrelevant
to the charges against Libby, and that he did not have any documents to
show
that Wilson's status was not classified, so that therefore Libby should
assume that it was. Finally, in court Friday, Fitzgerald argued that it
just
does not matter one way or the other.
"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her
status?" Walton asked.
"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald
responded,
adding that he would have more to say on the subject this week in a sealed
filing with the court.
Libby attorney Ted Wells objected. At trial, Wells said, Fitzgerald will
likely tell the jury that the CIA leak was a bad thing; even if Fitzgerald
has no proof of damage, he is sure to tell the jury that the leak could
have
caused grave damage. Just look in the indictment, Wells pointed out,
reading
a passage which said:
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their
association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these
individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the
fact
that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage
the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use
of
those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising
intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety
of
CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
Judge Walton interrupted. Yes, that's what's in the indictment, the judge
said, but he might not allow it to be discussed during the trial. "Just
because it's alleged in the indictment doesn't necessarily make it
admissible," the judge said.
That's true, Wells answered, but the defense has no way of knowing that
ahead of time. It has to prepare for trial on the assumption that the
damage
allegedly done by Wilson's disclosure, as discussed in the indictment and
in
Fitzgerald's public comments on the case, will be an issue. Therefore, it
needs information about Wilson's status to prepare a defense.
At that point, Wells introduced what was the Libby side's most extensive
statement to date of its theory of Wilson's CIA status. "I might call Ms.
Wilson" to testify, Wells said. "I might call her husband. There are going
to be CIA employees as witnesses in this...Was she just classified because
some bureaucracy didn't declassify her five years ago when they should
have?" Later, Wells asked whether Wilson might have been "classified based
on a piece of paper." After Wells's presentation, Fitzgerald responded
that
Wilson's CIA status did not matter.
Wells's speculation about Wilson's status matches up with descriptions of
Wilson's employment offered by some knowledgeable sources. There appears
to
be no doubt that Wilson was a covert CIA agent at the beginning and during
much of her career; people who trained with her and who served with her
attest to that. But there are questions about whether Wilson was in any
practical way operating undercover in the years leading up to her exposure
in the Novak column. The Libby team seemed to be suggesting that Wilson's
classified status, if that is what she had, was vestigial - that her
undercover days were over and she only retained that status on paper.
One knowledgeable source suggests that might be the case, but maintains
that
being technically undercover was still being undercover. "She was
definitely
undercover by agency standards at the time in question," the source says.
"That was a classified bit of information, and is sufficient as far as the
agency is concerned to bring it to the attention of the Justice
Department.
You can argue whether she should have been, but as far as the agency was
concerned it was classified."
One document that might shed light on the situation is the referral sent
by
the CIA to the Justice Department after the publication of the Novak
column.
Libby's lawyers have asked for it, but Fitzgerald is refusing that
request,
too. On Friday, Fitzgerald said he would address the subject later in his
sealed filing. But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday,
Fitzgerald's
deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the
referral - and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it.
"After
consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in
our
possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain
classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes
that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor
exculpatory
as to Mr. Libby."
In the end, the judge decided to put off a ruling on the issue until after
Fitzgerald files his sealed document, and after Libby's lawyers have a
chance to respond to it. What Walton will ultimately decide is unclear.
But
it is clear what Fitzgerald wants: a CIA leak trial in which the defense
is
forbidden from learning some critical facts about the CIA leak.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602270808.asp
.
- Prev by Date: Re: At lest he never got a BJ from an intern: Just How Much Dereliction of Duty is Too Much for Conservatives?
- Next by Date: Re: Reminder: I will MURDER horatio Fudruckerton
- Previous by thread: At lest he never got a BJ from an intern: Just How Much Dereliction of Duty is Too Much for Conservatives?
- Next by thread: Re: Cheney predicted to retire
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
