Plame Odds and Ends
Thanks to Jeralyn at TalkLeft, I've now had a chance to read through the reply memorandum from Scooter Libby's attorneys. There are no bombshells in the document, but there are a few passages that are mildly interesting.
First, as Jeralyn points out, Libby's attorneys indicate that they are considering calling Joe Wilson as a hostile witness at trial. That could be interesting. Libby's defense team may want to consider hiring Tom Maguire to do the direct examination. So what if he's not a lawyer. I'm sure Tom would have Wilson tripping over his words in no time.
This paragraph from the memo also caught my eye:
Libby's attorneys are fishing for evidence here to rebut Fitzgerald's contention that Libby lied because he did not want to get fired. Specifically, they think there might be documents indicating that the President didn't really mean what he said when he told the American people that he would fire anyone found to be involved in the leak. For instance, suppose there are documents which indicate that the President was aware of the roles Rove and/or Libby played in the Plame leak prior to making his statement about firing anyone involved (as at least one paper has reported). Such documents would tend to prove that Bush's threat was never a serious one, and therefore Libby had no reason to fear being fired. Needless to say, if such documents exist, they would be quite politically damaging for the White House. Let's hope Fitzgerald can comply with this particular document request.
Finally, in a rather gratuitous footnote clearly intended for media consumption, Libby's attorneys write:
This footnote is probably also intended to reassure the White House and the Vice President's Office that Libby has not changed his story. He wants to make it clear to his would-be pardoners that he has not flipped or implicated anyone else in the disclosure of Plame's identity.
First, as Jeralyn points out, Libby's attorneys indicate that they are considering calling Joe Wilson as a hostile witness at trial. That could be interesting. Libby's defense team may want to consider hiring Tom Maguire to do the direct examination. So what if he's not a lawyer. I'm sure Tom would have Wilson tripping over his words in no time.
This paragraph from the memo also caught my eye:
Based on the government's articulated motive
theory, the defense is also entitled to investigate
the Administration's response to the leak, such
as any alleged threats by the President to fire
officials who were involved. For example, if
documents indicate that notwithstanding
the President's public statements about
the leak investigation, Mr. Libby had no
reason to fear losing his job, the defense is
entitled to production of such documents.
Libby's attorneys are fishing for evidence here to rebut Fitzgerald's contention that Libby lied because he did not want to get fired. Specifically, they think there might be documents indicating that the President didn't really mean what he said when he told the American people that he would fire anyone found to be involved in the leak. For instance, suppose there are documents which indicate that the President was aware of the roles Rove and/or Libby played in the Plame leak prior to making his statement about firing anyone involved (as at least one paper has reported). Such documents would tend to prove that Bush's threat was never a serious one, and therefore Libby had no reason to fear being fired. Needless to say, if such documents exist, they would be quite politically damaging for the White House. Let's hope Fitzgerald can comply with this particular document request.
Finally, in a rather gratuitous footnote clearly intended for media consumption, Libby's attorneys write:
We emphasize that, consistent with his grand
jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend
that he was instructed to make any disclosures
concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush,
Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.
This footnote is probably also intended to reassure the White House and the Vice President's Office that Libby has not changed his story. He wants to make it clear to his would-be pardoners that he has not flipped or implicated anyone else in the disclosure of Plame's identity.
posted by A.L. at 10:57 PM
11 Comments:
Bush only promised to fire anyone who divulged CLASSIFIED info. Since Bush himself had DECLASSIFIED it, Libby was in no danger of being fired!
Specifically, they think there might be documents indicating that the President didn't really mean what he said when he told the American people that he would fire anyone found to be involved in the leak.
Very interesting point, and I would think it is the kind of things newsies can understand and follow up on.
However - as to whether the defense thinks Fitzgerald actually has documents for a secret deal, who knows? Maybe they think Fitzgerald is improvising at a late date and never really explored it.
First, Libby ought to know whether he himself has a secret deal; he also ought to know whether he testified on that point to Fitzgerald.
Secondly, the Fitzgerald filing relied on the public record to establish the White House position. Why no private testimony from Cheney or Bush to confirm this point? It certainly wasn't because they wanted to spare Cheney some embarrassment in that filing. And if Fitzgerald had evidence of a secret deal, it would be powerful evidence of a conspiracy - why not present it in the indictment, or elsewhere, as an explanation for Libby's lies?
So it strike me as possible (even probable) that the defense believes that Fitzgerald is fishing on this point (or keeping his fingers crossed), and has no evidence one way or the other, but they want to be sure.
Tom Maguire
Tom,
It's not so much that I think there was some secret deal; it's that I think Libby and/or Rove may have come clean to Bush before Bush made his statements about firing people involved. If so, that would tend to prove that Bush either 1) didn't mean what he said, or 2) was not referring to Bush or Libby when he made that comment. If any documents back this up, then Libby can use them to show that he had no legitimate fear of being fired for his involvement in the Plame leak and therefore would not have lied to keep from getting fired.
I agree about the footnote, the media, and the WH... I had the same thought before finding your post.
I think the point that should be noticed (and perhaps has been)is that Bush first said that he would fire anyone who had leaked, later he said anyone who had broken the law -- and besides - he does not feel that he was leaking but rather informing the public of information they were missing - I think this all flows into his trickle-down theory - its golden colored alright but it seems abit pissy to me.
I think Libby and/or Rove may have come clean to Bush before Bush made his statements about firing people involved.
Not Libby: remember Fitzgerald's filing from last week mentioned that in late September-early October 2003 Bush was unaware of Libby's role. It's p. 27, and see 27-28 generally.
As for Rove, I have to go back and look at the precise details and timing, but Waas and the NYDaily News had contradictory accounts, I believe, on when Rove told Bush what regarding his involvement.
Jeff
Makes me curiouser and curiouser about the newly found emails. I'm still praying for a nexis moment when those emails, written during a time of high stress as war time inspections were coming up empty, somehow lump several of these lies into a common defense strategy. After all, why come up with a new defense strategy for each one. Great analysis AL, thank you.
one thing about the posting suggesting there could be a secret deal. to the extent that libby fessed up to the president about his role, it would refute fitzgerald's motive, but it would also be very damaging to libby's defense at the same time. if he admitted having a role prior to telling the fbi differently, he could be admitting to what he has been charged with - perjury, obstruction, making false statements.
to the extent that libby fessed up to the president about his role, it would refute fitzgerald's motive, but it would also be very damaging to libby's defense at the same time. if he admitted having a role prior to telling the fbi differently
This is a good point, as is Jeff's point about the Fitzgerald filing.
But even if Libby didn't come clean to Bush, perhaps Rove did. And perhaps Libby knew that Rove did. Because Rove was just as "involved" in the Plame leak as Libby (arguably more so), Libby could argue that the fact Bush did not fire Rove made him confident at the time that Bush really didn't intend to fire anyone, despite his public statements. Therefore, if any documents substantiate the fact that Rove came clean before the statement about firing people, Libby's attorneys would want them to show lack of motive on Libby's part.
If so, that would tend to prove that Bush either 1) didn't mean what he said, or 2) was not referring to Bush or Libby when he made that comment. If any documents back this up, then Libby can use them . . .
I'm trying to envision the scenario, and having a hard time at it. The documents are the rub. It's not just that Bush acts as father confessor, but then tells 'em to "put it in a memo" (because we have to have documentation what with the ongoing investigation and all [umm, no]). Then he provides them with a version of: "It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer has done what has been done." Sorry, but that just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Further, there are a couple simpler, alternate explanations:
1)Libby is simply claiming he wasn't the source of the leak, nor did he leak classified information, and thus the threat didn't apply to him; or
2)They're referring to Libby's proposed verbiage for his desired public statement (which had to've been written, as Fitz quotes a copy), and some of the related paperwork expresses the President's confidence in Libby; or
3)They're referring to an Administration plan for responding to Wilson (cited as a discovery request), which possibly names Libby in a prominent, trusted position.
Personally, I'd pick 2 as a guess, since it would explain Fitz's statement about President Bush not knowing what they were up to (proactively discrediting the document in case he lost the discovery battle). But this is so far into conjecture as to be practically meaningless.
Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh PLEASE call Joe Wilson as a hostile witness. Five minutes of Wilson-love from the stand, and Scooter will be facing the death penalty.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home