Libby Fighting To Suppress Grand Jury Tapes

[kpete]

Libby: Don't Release Grand Jury Tapes

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Friday, February 2, 2007; 12:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is fighting to keep his grand jury testimony about the leak of a CIA operative's name from being released and broadcast in the media.

Libby's grand jury testimony _ the sworn statements he gave to investigators about his conversations with Vice President Dick Cheney and journalists _ is at the heart of his perjury trial. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald plans to play hours of recordings of that testimony in court next week to bolster his case that Libby lied and obstructed the investigation.


Trial evidence is normally public and all exhibits in Libby's case have been made public so far. Even though Fitzgerald successfully fought to get Libby's full grand jury testimony admitted into evidence, Libby's attorneys say the audiotapes should not be released outside the courtroom.

Libby defense attorney William Jeffress, who successfully argued a Supreme Court case that kept the Watergate tapes from being released, said in court Thursday that grand jury tapes are never meant to be made public.

more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200818.html

[muntrv]

1. Libby, you need to sing like a canary.

[Kagemusha]

2. I'm not sure if he has a case or not

Normally the stuff isn't allowed to be released but normally it's not probative evidence in a perjury case...

[TahitiNut]

7. A sure way to make it public is to lie to the Grand Jury.

Funny how that works. :shrug:

[flyarm]

3. funny but the neo con bastards had no problem releasing all of clintons testimony!!

they couldn't get it out and repeat it over and over again...fast enough!!

whats good for the goose.............


Libby was our employee ..we have the right to know!! and hear all that liars lies!!!!

fly

[TahitiNut]

6. That was a deposition, not Grand Jury testimony.

I agree, howver, it was sleazy to release it ... particularly snipped and edited.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. Isn't deposition, written sworn testimony?

[TahitiNut]

13. There's nothing necessarily written (except a transcript) in a deposition.

While written questionnaires are often used in a deposition, a deposition is evidentiary testimony given under oath for use in a court relating to some civil or criminal litigation, usually in the discovery phase. Grand Jury testimony is investigative - used to determine whether a crime has been committed. While both are given under oath, various elements of due process (right to confront witnesses, etc.) are absent from the Grand Jury context since there is, as yet, no 'accused.' Furthermore, Grand Jury testimony is necessarily going to be far more wide-ranging than courtroom (or depositive) testimony since much may be irrelevant to any ensuing charges and specifications - i.e. rules of evidence. Grand Jury testimony, therefore, is non-adversarial - while evidentiary testimony is given in an adversarial context. Indeed, depositions may contain irrelevant testimony as well, and won't be presented to a jury if ruled irrelevant. (Judges in non-jury trials are required to ignore irrelevant testimony in a deposition. It would be a reversible error to incorporate a consideration of irrelevancies in making a judgment.)

Caveat: IANAL

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Thanks for that. I'm not sure though whether, since it's not adversarial,

it would be inappropriate. On the other hand, you can see the need for judges to ensure the relevance to a trial of elements of the testimony.

[Usrename]

15. Clinton's deposition for the Paula Jones case was video-taped.

Starr also had Clinton's Grand Jury testimony video-taped. We know it was his Grand Jury testimony because it was reported that the jury foreman was not present (he was sick) for the President's swearing-in, even though the foreman was the only person authorized to give the oath in Starr' Grand Jury. The videos from both the deposition and the Grand Jury testimony were released by Henry Hyde and his gang.

[EFerrari]

4. Yet another example that demonstrates

BushCo can't stand the light of day.

Pathetic losers.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. On a practical note, what's in those tapes?

What will the world likely find out that Skootie-kins doesn't want us to hear?

[kpete]

8. TAPES OF LIBBY LYING...

Fitzgerald also appeared to be planning another multimedia display that would let jurors hear Libby's grand jury testimony in court. FBI agent Deborah Bond was the next witness Thursday .

Fitzgerald believes jurors should hear and see Libby's words for themselves. He successfully fought to allow into evidence Libby's full grand jury testimony -- the sworn statements he gave prosecutors during the investigation -- and Fitzgerald played a brief clip during his opening statement.

That tape would give jurors the chance to hear for themselves the testimony that Fitzgerald says is a lie and that Libby says is a product of faulty memory.

Fitzgerald told the court that he expects to "publish" or play to the jury Libby's grand jury testimony on audio tape Monday. That would likely last into Tuesday. The tape is approximately eight hours according to the lawyers.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fww...

[DemReadingDU]

17. from Murray Waas

Patrick Fitzgerald, that most secretive and discrete of federal prosecutors, did something very un-Patrick Fitzgerald-esque late last week, that went largely unnoticed except by an AP reporter and the Huffington Post.

Fitzgerald sought permission from the federal judge hearing the Libby case, Reggie Walton, to release audio tapes of LIbby's grand jury testimony to the media: to be broadcast, posted on the Internet, YouTube, or wherever else. That would surely change the dynamic of public attention to the case. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox would probably endlessly play portions of the tapes, and the public would be able to hear Libby's testimony first-hand.

I don't like to predict, even while blogging, but most legal experts doub that the grand jury tapes will be made public, and Walton's comments from the bench indicated that he has not been exactly enthralled with the idea of the tapes being played 24/7 on the cable networks and Internet. But Walton is an unpredictable jurist, and a careful stickler to case law, so perhaps it is best to just await his decision to find out what it might be.


http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2007/02/libby-trial-weekend-edition-patrick.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Oh, give it to us, GIVE IT TO US!

The truth shall set us free. It might imprison Libby and the rest of the Bush gang, but it will SET US FREEEEEEEE!

[rateyes]

10. It's time for Libby to cut a deal....

would love to see more prosecutions of bigger fish.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. I wanna hear those tapes! Now!!!! eom

[madokie]

16. it would be nice to see or hear libby sing but with the tyrant having his hand on a pardon pen

I don't think he will. when its all said and done bushie will pardon libby, methinks

[Festivito]

18. Never say never. Plus Nixon could argue national security, Libby--not so much.

Unless the judge goes with the new balance concept. That is if someone lies and another tells the truth, the judgment lies somewhere in the middle.

Not to worry for the RepubliCONvICts, they'll manage to obscure release of the tapes and transcripts.

The media believe in the new balance concept.