Libby's Lawyers: Was She (Plame) Or Wasn't She?

[Me.]

“Before your client goes to trial, there are a number of items that have to be done to protect your client's rights, to be certain that you have all of the information you need to defend him from the charges he faces...and to cover your ass you have to do them all or you worry about being sued for committing malpractice for inadequately representing your client's interests.

Today, we see that the Libby defense team has filed a motion to require a determination that Plame was, in fact, a "classified" employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. They argue that the answer is not yet clear ---well, of course they do.

Plame's classified status would be an element of any further legal action for Libby, should charges of IIPA or Espionage Act or Conspiracy be filed down the road. No attorney worth anything is going to concede that fact unless and until they are forced to do so. And of course they are going to try and force the government to produce documentation on this fact...because in those documents might be other information that can be used to muddy the waters.


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.”cont….

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

[emulatorloo]

1. So will Porter Goss do a little revisionist history to protect Bushboy?

Now that the good guys and gals have been purged from the CIA, will Porter create some docs to protect Bushboy and libby?

[stop the bleeding]

2. interesting move - will it work?

[Me.]

4. Who Can Say?

In the world of B*** anything seems to go. And don't forget, the judge, Reggie Walton, seems to have "been placed" on the case. My guess is Libby will be given a great deal of latitude in the "name of fairness".

[stop the bleeding]

5. good point on the judge n/t

[H2O Man]

7. Post #3

has a correct answer .... "Scooter" is charged with specific crimes that do not depend upon Plame's status. His attorneys are filing motions for evidence on this and, of course, on a handful or reporter's notes, which also have nothing to do with the charges he faces -- with the possible exception of Russert's notes.

Hence, the question of the day is, simply put, "Why?" By no small coincidence, on the earliest of the "Plame threads" I noted that "how?" was far less significant a question than "why?" in this case. That remains constant.

So ..... while it is almost too obvious, Why?

[stop the bleeding]

9. they're trying to play any card that's still left in the deck, because

when reading the indictment the writing is on the wall so to speak for the Libby camp. Maybe the "why" is out of desperation or his lawyers trying throw every procedural hurdle in the way of Fitz's process. Hard to tell when the lawyers and courts are involved.

What do you think the "why" is?

[Me.]

12. Running The Clock Out?

Even though there is no statue of limitations, hiding and obfuscating the truth until the admin is out of office?

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. The question isn't relevant now

Libby was charged with perjury, so this motion is bogus. Let 'em file ...

[MADem]

8. Yep, in this case, it IS the lie that gets him....the coverup part will

come if they can flip his ass. And they just might--he has a young family, and it would suck to only be able to see them on visiting day through plexiglass....

6. It also sounds like Libby's defense is trying to lasso VP Cheney

If they have daily briefings, those will show Cheney's involvement and Libby's and how things played out.

"""""The defense said it also is seeking records of daily briefings from the Office of the Vice President to show that Libby was immersed in national security matters from dawn to dusk every day.

"These documents are material to establishing that any misstatements he may have made were the result of confusion, mistake and faulty memory . . . rather than deliberate lies," according to the papers."""""

[H2O Man]

10. The PDB's .....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101434.html

[stop the bleeding]

11. sounds like a Rove/Luskin oops I forgot about the email defense

"These documents will establish that Mr. Libby was immersed throughout the relevant period in urgent and sensitive matters, some literally matters of life and death," his lawyers wrote.

"Based in part on the documents, Mr. Libby will show that, in the constant rush of more pressing matters, any errors he made in his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony, months after the conversations, were the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory, rather than a willful intent to deceive," the lawyers argued.

~snip~

This part kills me


"As you are no doubt aware, the documents referred to as the Presidential Daily Briefs are extraordinarily sensitive documents which are usually highly classified," Fitzgerald wrote. "We have never requested copies of any PDBs."

Libby's lawyers said they believe Fitzgerald should obtain the documents from the CIA and the vice president's office and turn them over to the defense team. The defense lawyers said they reserve the right to seek records kept by other government agencies, including the State Department, Office of the President and the National Security Council.

Well if the defense lawyers reserve the right then why don't they get the documents from the CIA and Veeps office themselves. Man these guys have some nerves.

[Missy Vixen]

13. They want the prosecution to do it

>Well if the defense lawyers reserve the right then why don't they get the documents from the CIA and Veeps office themselves. Man these guys have some nerves.<

The defense can then scream that the prosecution is overreaching, they're disseminating confidential information, etcetera. There's probably another strategerie here I'm missing. Suffice it to say that America's Hottest Prosecutor wouldn't have indicted Libby in the first place if he didn't have the most ironclad case he could have.

IMHO, YMMV.
Julie

[Me.]

14. And If The Prosecution Says NO, Get Your Own Documents...?

what then?