UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Josh says...

 

Comment via Washington Monthly...

 

That's an interesting article. I know Fitzgerald is methodical, so perhaps he has some evidence that Cheney is going to find very unappetizing. It does seem unlikely that he would open as he did without good reason. I sure hope this doesn't drag on as long as you think it might, though.



D&D. Who would have Thunk It?

 

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dyna...RIAL?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

the puffington host weighs in a key prosecution witness tim russert.

[rquoter]Arianna Huffington
The Libby Trial: Why Did Tim Russert Fight So Hard to Avoid Telling the Grand Jury What He Had Already Told the FBI?

Tim Russert hobbled into the courtroom this afternoon on crutches. When he left the stand at the end of the day (slated to return for more cross-examination tomorrow) his credibility had been so hobbled it needed a pair of crutches of its own.

The key moment of Russert's testimony came when he was being cross-examined by Theodore Wells, one of Scooter Libby's two main defense attorneys.

During Wells' cross, it came out that when Russert was initially contacted by the FBI in November 2003, he freely told the agent interviewing him, Agent Eckenrode, everything that he later spent months trying to avoid telling to the federal grand jury investigating the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity (see Tom Maguire). The question is, Why?

Why, if Russert had already told the FBI all about his July 10 or July 11 conversation with Libby, would he fight so hard to quash the subpoena compelling him to testify?

Why claim the confidential nature of the Libby call as a reason not to testify, when he had failed to claim any confidentiality privilege during his FBI interview?

Why wasn't the fact that Russert had already unloaded to the FBI included in his sworn declaration to Judge Hogan trying to quash the subpoena?

Why did Russert not recall, as he told Wells twice, whether he had informed NBC News President Neil Shapiro that he had already told the FBI what NBC was fighting hard to protect him from having to tell the grand jury?

And why, since Russert had already told the FBI, didn't he deem it his journalistic duty to also tell the public?

More to come...[/rquoter]

and this from a long article on the russert testimony by clarice feldman at the american thinker.

[rquoter]In sum, Wells established that (a) the FBI report of his conversations (they say he had two, he only recalls one) made far closer in time to the event indicate he conceded that Ms. Wilson's name may have come up in their conversation though he earlier discounted that as "impossible" (b) In a heated matter involving the Buffalo News, his own memory was faulty. He'd made two angry calls to a critical reporter, denied that he had, and then, after checking his phone records, apologized, asserting he had no memory whatsoever of the calls, and (c) while making an impassioned plea for the right of reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, he'd already twice discussed the Libby exchanges with the FBI and failed to disclose that to the Court or the public.

From a filing by the prosecutor last evening trying to block inquiry into the accommodations made to Russert for his (total of 22 minutes) deposition testimony in his lawyer's offices, it appears that while this last point was not specifically noted in any pleadings I can see, the defense was provided with the FBI notes which provided some notice to them of the discrepancies in the NBC public pleading and that it contained a false suggestion that Russert had not already cooperated with the government. It is not clear that this Court, or the Court which determined the related case on the reporters' obligation to testify, was ever informed that the Russert filing was false.[/rquoter]

 

is that from cheney, bush, or someone else?

 

It is from Cheney.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/cia.leak.ap/index.html

[rquoter]
Vice President Cheney will not testify at Libby trial

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Neither Vice President Dick Cheney nor his former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will testify at Libby's perjury and obstruction trial in the CIA leak case, Libby's lawyer said Tuesday.

Defense attorney Theodore Wells said he advised Cheney's lawyer over lunch that the vice president's testimony would not be needed. Wells also said he planned to rest his case this week without calling Libby.

In December, Wells had announced he would call Cheney as a defense witness. Historians said it would have been the first time a sitting vice president would have sat as a witness in a criminal case.

Libby is accused of lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Plame is married to former ambassador and prominent war critic Joseph Wilson.

Attorneys said Cheney was willing to testify and, as recently as two weeks ago, Cheney said in an interview that he planned to be a witness. Libby, too, once seemed a likely witness. Pretrial documents said he would testify about his busy schedule and the national security issues that weighed on his mind.

But when U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton asked Libby in court Tuesday whether he was sure he did not want to testify. Libby responded: "Yes, your honor."

Defense attorneys say they plan to rest their case after they question three CIA briefers about Libby's daily intelligence briefings. Prosecutors say those briefers shouldn't be allowed to testify now that Libby isn't going to take the stand.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Plame. Prosecutors say Libby learned Plame's identity from Cheney and other officials, relayed that information to reporters, then concocted a story to cover it up.

Libby says he was preoccupied with national security intelligence and honestly forgot details about Plame. He says he learned her identity from Cheney, forgot it, and learned it again a month later from NBC's Tim Russert and believed it was new information.

With Cheney and Libby off the witness list, attorneys said they planned to rest Wednesday. That schedule could be derailed if snow and freezing rain continued in Washington. Court closed early Tuesday because of the weather. Closing arguments will be held next week, Walton said.

Libby's defense team had planned to call Cheney to testify about his former aide's memory and his intense workload. Putting Cheney on the stand would have opened him up to cross-examination about how closely he was monitoring Wilson's criticism of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Wilson, who conducted a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, said he debunked prewar intelligence that Iraq sought to buy uranium from the African nation. That intelligence was still used as a basis for the invasion.

Fitzgerald argues that Libby was eager to discredit Wilson because he viewed Wilson as a threat to the credibility of Cheney and Bush.

By not taking the stand, Libby is giving up part of his defense. Walton said he would not allow defense attorneys to tell jurors that Libby considered his national security responsibilities more important than Wilson. Only Libby could tell jurors what he considered important, Walton said.
Former colleague describes faulty memory

Earlier on Tuesday, Cheney's national security adviser described Libby as someone responsible for the nation's most sensitive intelligence but whose memory was notoriously spotty.

John Hannah, who served as Libby's deputy in 2003 and 2004, described a workday that began with a highly classified CIA briefing and continued at breakneck speed from one top-level meeting to the next.(Watch as a State Department official discusses Plame with a Washington Post reporter Video)

"He was the key person talking about and helping advise the vice president on issues of homeland security," Hannah testified.

Hannah is a critical defense witness because he bolsters Libby's argument that he was focused on terrorist threats, foreign intelligence and war planning. And when it came to remembering things in such a fast-paced environment, Hannah said, Libby frequently faltered.

"On certain things, Scooter just had an awful memory," Hannah said.[/rquoter]

it'd be so awesome if the MSM at least tried to get the basics right:

"That intelligence was still used as a basis for the invasion."

 

I've got a dollar on not guilty.

 

You lose. He's been found guilty on multiple counts, according to CNN.

 

justice is served! who's next?

 

Guilty on 4 out of 5 counts

 

I hope you're right, but I think you are wrong. Libby is the sacrificial lamb.