Two new articles came out today about the Libby trail; RAW STORY, Publishes: Thursday April 13, 2006,
Leak story continues to track in US papers, as Boston Globe weighs in And the Boston Globe. By Charlie Savage, writes in the Boston Globe, on | April 14, 2006, that
Libby seeks administration documents:Prewar intelligence relevant to defense, lawyers contend
While the Boston Globe article does not break additional revelations it keeps the pressure on the Bush Administration to come clean about it's extensive involvement which is still denied. Libby's latest filing will become available at noon. And I provide a link to it here.
The Globe Article helps to connect the dots between the Plamegate scandal and the more recent Administration deceptions with the false claims of mobile Bio-weapons laboratory, aluminum tubes, and forged Niger documents.
Libby Too Busy Lying About Bigger Issues For WH To Be Expected To Remember Outing Valerie Plame
And confirms that I Scooter LIbby's primary defense will be that he was so busy trying to prevent the public from learning the truth about these and other Bush Administration's deceptions about the Iraq War, that he forgot about the Valerie Plame outing as a minor detail.
Libby is charged with obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury for falsely denying he had any involvement in disclosing Valerie Plame's role as an undercover CIA agent.
So yes, Libby is asking plaintively, "how could you expect me to remember a little think like outing a CIA agent to smear the credibility of her husband, when I was trying to manipulate the New York Times and other mainstream media to lie about forged Niger documents, aluminum, tubes, and mobile Bio-labs.
So Scooter Libby's lawyers insist they need 14,000 boxes of evidence from US Prosecutor Fitzgerald to prove how extensive the Bush Administration's campaign of deception was. Fitzgerald responds that Libby's lawyers do not actually need this because he is merely charged with lying to the Grand Jury, and the real reasons for his extensive subpoena is "greymail." An attempt to get US national security guardians to argue the release of the requested documents would compromise national security forcing the judge to dismiss the charges.
From Charlie Savage's Globe article, Libby seeks administration documents: Prewar intelligence relevant to defense, lawyers contend
WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby are citing prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's disclosure last week that President Bush had authorized Libby to leak sensitive Iraqi intelligence as justification for a request to obtain thousands of documents that could shed new light on the administration's use of prewar intelligence.
In papers filed late Wednesday night in connection with Libby's perjury indictment, his lawyers accuse Fitzgerald of trying to ''have it both ways" by revealing information about the inner workings of the administration while dismissing their own requests for similar information as irrelevant to the charges, which concern only whether Libby lied under oath about his contacts with reporters.
''Far from focusing on what Mr. Libby said and did, the government's disclosure focused on the role of two other players in the matter, President Bush and Vice President [Dick] Cheney, setting off an avalanche of media interest," Libby's lawyer wrote. ''In other words, the government has effectively conceded that the case extends far beyond Mr. Libby, but refuses to provide defendant with discovery that reflects that fact."
This much of Libby's request seems true. The administration's campaign to manipulate the media with regard to pre-Iraq war Intelligence did extend far beyond Libby. And it is somewhat astonishing that Libby is admitting to. And disastrous for the Bush Administration which is still denying any attempt to deceive the public. But here we see stated in a simple and straight forward admission by Libby, that he was just one cog in an extensive Administration campaign to deceive the public about the mobile Bio-weapons labs, aluminum tubs, and the forged Niger documents.
A Litany of False Intelligence Claims: Bio-weapons, Aluminum Tubes, and Forged Niger Uranium Documents
On Sunday the Washington Post reported that when Bush proclaimed, ''We have found the weapons of mass destruction" in May 2003 following the seizure of two trailers he described as mobile bio-weapons labs, a team of specialists had already told the White House that the trailers had nothing to do with making weapons.
And last month the magazine National Journal revealed that Bush had been directly warned in October 2002 that specialists at the Energy and the State departments disagreed with other analysts' conclusions that certain aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were ''related to a uranium enrichment effort" for a nuclear weapons program, saying the tubes were instead most likely to be used to make conventional rockets.
Three months later, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush cited the tubes as one of two pieces of evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program, saying, ''Our intelligence sources tell us that [Iraq] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
In the same speech Bush said, ''The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Joseph Wilson Seen As Threat Because He Challenged Bush's Lies
On July 6, 2003, after the US invasion of Iraq and its failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV wrote in a New York Times column that the CIA had sent him to Niger the previous year to investigate the uranium allegation and that he had reported back that it was probably a hoax.
Days later journalist Robert Novak revealed in a column that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA operative who had helped her husband obtain the assignment.
In the new filing, Libby's lawyers emphasize that Bush and Cheney did not authorize their client to leak Plame Wilson's identity. Rather, they say, Libby was authorized to disclose selected prewar analysis that could demonstrate that, contrary to Wilson's suggestion, Bush's Niger claim reflected the consensus of the intelligence community at the time.
Libby's Defense: He Was Too Bush Lying For The Administration On Bigger Issue To Be Expected To Remember Valerie Plame Outing
I don't know Mr Libby. If this is the best defense you can think off, perhaps,. you should think of cutting a deal with Fitzgerald. Even GOP contributors to Libby's defense fund are getting squeamish about the direction this line of defense is taking.
The filing also sheds further light on Libby's defense strategy in the perjury case. The filing says Libby wants to show that Plame Wilson's identity was viewed as ''peripheral" and that exposing her role was not part of the White House's planned response to Joseph C. Wilson IV. Thus, ''any misstatements he made" to the grand jury about whether he told reporters about Plame while discussing Niger were ''innocent mistakes."
''The defense intends to show the jury that the controversy over intelligence failures during the spring and summer of 2003 led certain officials within the White House, the State Department, and the CIA to point fingers at each other," the filing says. ''This bureaucratic infighting provides necessary context for the testimony of witnesses from different government agencies."
It adds: ''Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important."
To build that defense, Libby's lawyers say they need access to any documents about the circumstances and results of Wilson's trip to Niger, as well as documents sent, received, or reviewed in the spring and summer of 2003 by potential witnesses in the perjury case.
In particular, they say they want to scrutinize former undersecretary of state Marc Grossman, who testified that he told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby testified that he remembered no such conversation. The filing also mentions White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Advance Excerpts From Libby Court Filing To Be Released At Noon
And Raw Story has obtained these advanced excerpts from the Libby Filing Which will be posted at Noon Today.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM LIBBY'S FILING (PDF TO BE POSTED BY NOON FRIDAY ET)
Below, we provide further examples of why the documents we seek are necessary to prepare to examine three particular witnesses - Mr. Grossman, Mr. Fleischer, and Mr. Rove.
Marc Grossman. As discussed in the introduction, the government plans to call Under Secretary Grossman to testify that he discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with Mr. Libby - a conversation that Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury he did not recall and which may not have occurred as alleged in the indictment. For example, the indictment asserts that this conversation occurred "[o]n or about June 11 or 12, 2003." (Indictment, Count One, at ¶ 6.)
Accordingly, Mr. Grossman's activities in that time period, including any other communications about Ms. Wilson that he may have had, are highly relevant. If, for example, documents indicate that Mr. Grossman confused details of the conversation alleged in the indictment with a conversation with another government official, the defense will use such documents to suggest that his recollection is faulty. In a case where it is already manifest that the memories of many witnesses conflict regarding many different conversations, it is not fair to foreclose the possibility that witnesses other than Mr. Libby may be confused or mistaken about relevant events.
It is unreasonable for the government to contend that because Mr. Grossman's "testimony will not be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted," it is irrelevant whether his statements are substantively true. (Gov't Br. at 11.) Regardless of the government's limited offer, the defense has a constitutional right to attempt to demonstrate, if it so chooses, that the substance of Mr. Grossman's testimony is incorrect, and that all of his testimony should be rejected, including his allegation that he spoke to Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson on a particular day. The best way to do that would be to show that some part or all of Mr. Grossman's statements were substantively untrue.
The government responds to the defense contention that bias on the part of Mr. Grossman deserves to be explored by stating that "loyalty to Mr. Armitage or to the State Department" would not cause Mr. Grossman to "invent conversations . . . and testify to them under oath." (Id. at 14.) Whether the government's statement on this point is true is for the jury to decide....
Finally, by arguing that Mr. Grossman's credibility is beyond challenge, the government has once again staked out two hopelessly inconsistent positions. The government asserts that Mr. Libby was motivated to lie under oath to avoid causing "great embarrassment to the administration." (Id. at 26.) Yet, at the same time, the government also argues that the defense should not have the opportunity to determine whether Mr. Grossman might be motivated to testify in a manner that would prevent embarrassment to the State Department.
Ari Fleischer. The government states that it intends to call former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer to testify about a conversation with Mr. Libby, during which Ms. Wilson's identity was allegedly discussed.
Again, as with Mr. Grossman, the defense has the right to challenge this allegation and investigate when and how Mr. Fleischer learned of Ms. Wilson's employment. The government has admitted that "multiple officials in the White House discussed her employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14," and the defense has the right to explore whether any of these other officials may also have discussed Ms. Wilson with Mr. Fleischer. (Id. at 30, n.10.) In addition, Mr. Fleischer may have learned about Ms. Wilson's identity from someone at the State Department or the CIA. The defense therefore needs access to any documents discussing Mr. Wilson, his wife, or his trip to Niger that may be found in the White House or at other agencies. Such documents are needed to investigate properly when and how Mr. Fleischer learned that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA and when and with whom (other than Mr. Libby) he discussed that fact.
In our moving brief, the defense pointed to an even more specific reason to scrutinize the government's proffered version of Mr. Fleischer's testimony. Press accounts suggest that Mr. Fleischer may have learned about Ms. Wilson during his trip to Africa after seeing it in a classified report sent to Mr. Powell on Air Force One and then disclosed this information to reporters. Yet, the government claims that nothing further is required for Mr. Fleischer's cross-examination than "a copy of the report in question." (Id. at 12.) In so arguing, the government is once again attempting to dictate which defenses may be raised and which allegations in the indictment may be challenged. Nothing in Rule 16 or the case law of this Circuit suggests that the defense should be limited to cross-examining Mr. Fleischer with only the one report that the government deigns to disclose.
...
The government's contention that the report is all the defense needs to cross- examine Mr. Fleischer is unpersuasive. Other documents, totally unrelated to the report, may show that Mr. Fleischer learned about Ms. Wilson from someone other than Mr. Libby. Also, the substance of the report is not as important as what Mr. Fleischer did with or said about the report. That information is likely reflected in correspondence, notes, or e-mails in Mr. Fleischer's files, not in the report itself. After reviewing such documents, the defense will be better equipped to examine Mr. Fleischer about whether he saw the report on Air Force One, whether he recognized that it contained classified information, and whether he communicated its contents to anyone else.
Karl Rove. Senior White House advisor Karl Rove figures prominently in the government's indictment. He allegedly spoke both to Mr. Novak and Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA. Accordingly, the government's statement that it does not presently intend to call Mr. Rove does not diminish his importance in this case. The defense is likely to call Mr. Rove to provide testimony regarding Mr. Libby's conversations with Mr. Rove concerning reporters' inquiries about Ms. Wilson, as expressly discussed in the indictment. (Indictment, Count One, at ¶ 21.) Documents from Mr. Rove's files about the subjects outlined in the indictment are discoverable pursuant to Rule 16 because without them the defense cannot effectively prepare for Mr. Rove's examination. As discussed above, Rule 16 compels disclosure of such documents even if Mr. Rove remains a subject of a continuing grand jury investigation.
Conclusions
I hope these tidbits can keep the true Fitzgerald investigation addicts going until noon.
One fortunate bit of good news in all of this is the highlighting of the Bush administrations extensive campaign of public deception, lies, and cherry picking in the pre-Iraq War intelligence,. How can the Senate Intelligence Committee continue to stonewall on the need for public hearings in this matter. Their announced upcoming report will have zero credibility.
And even the GOP should realize by now, that it is not even to their advantage to continue to stonewall about this. This trial is not scheduled until next January. Can they imagine the damage yet to be done by daily drip feeds of leaks, speculation, and media focus on this scandal until then?
And I helped! And will continue until these White House criminals are brought to justice.
Cheers.