Fitzgerald given way out of Libby CIA leak case

[plasticsundance]

WASHINGTON - The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursday that if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certain classified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby can jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismiss the perjury charges against Libby.

Judge Reggie Walton cannot automatically allow classified materials to be admitted at trial. He first must go through a series of closed hearings under CIPA regulations. CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, protects and restricts the discovery of classified information in a way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial. It also allows the government to propose a redacted version of a classified document as a substitution for the original, having deleted only non-relevant classified information.

more ...

[chill_wind]

1. K&R. nt

[wicket]

2. And another

:kick:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. Good

This whole thing was one big fiasco, just like EVERYTHING that appears to be going the Left's way, then accordingly collapses right in front of our eyes.

Might as well just let Libby go. He's going to get off anyways, and I guess Fitz doesn't have anything to go after anybody else with.

It's basically a failed circus at this point. Whether Libby gets tried and convicted or not. Who cares? He's at best a "fall guy." The true CRIMINALS are still working and FUCKING us over every single day.

[BootinUp]

25. I was still wanting to see Cheney take the stand.

And have to testify under oath.

[cascadiance]

27. And that will likely only happen in a criminal case like this!

If Walton or another one of these cronies gets appointed to be the judge of Plame and Wilson's civil suit, you just KNOW that they will dismiss it for state secrets privilege reasons, since that's been used a lot in civil cases. I want this trial to go through if for no other reason to try and test whether we can get those like Cheney on the stand that might be required in a criminal case like this. We're probably not going to get too many criminal case opportunities like this in the near future.

[Catherine Vincent]

4. Unbelievable!

:(

[ms liberty]

5. Another K&R

I'm interested in knowing what our resident Plame case experts have to say about this...paging H20Man!

[stepnw1f]

30. This Makes You Happy?

[ms liberty]

35. No...what would make you think that?

It makes me curious. It makes me interested in this new development. I see it as another move on the chessboard that is this phase of the Libby case. I have not followed every single aspect of this case so closely as to be able to express a solid opinion of what this development means.

Did you even read my post? I K&R'd the story and said I wanted to know what our DU'ers - particularly H20Man - who ARE closely following this case think of this development. I'm not going to jump to a conclusion simply because of one ruling. The article/thread title was rather sensational but it is what the ruling actually says, and how Fitz responds to it that matters.

[Fridays Child]

6. Isn't this "graymail," as described by David Corn, in The Nation?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=57174

[plasticsundance]

9. Yes ... it is.

Graymail is a defense tactic sometimes used by trial defendants where access to classified material is requested to blackmail the government to drop the trial.

It has two meanings:

1) To blackmail the government into dropping the case or else the defendant will reveal classified information.<1>

2) To request use of classified material. The defendant speculates it will not fully be made available to the case, thereby making it difficult to prove guilt as it provides doubt that the unreleased material would clear the defendant.<2>

The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), also known as the Graymail Law, of 1980 was designed to counter this tactic (meaning #1) by allowing judges to review classified material in secret, so that the prosecution can proceed without fear of publicly disclosing sensitive intelligence

more ...

[H2O Man]

24. We may find

that the OVP is the real loser here.

[Fridays Child]

29. I could live with that.

[aquart]

31. How?

[ms liberty]

37. Will you be weighing in on this later?

There does seem to be a lot of nervous nellies getting the vapours over this new development. I am not one of them - we are still in the discovery and motions phase, aren't we?

[zanne]

49. Thank you for this.

I read Corn's article. What an underhanded legal maneuver. We should all talk about this whenever we get a chance so people will recognize this tactic for what it is.

[Snivi Yllom]

7. anyone still think Rove was indicted?

I smell Libby's charges getting dropped.

[rhett o rick]

38. Ask Truthout. nm

[Qutzupalotl]

54. Libby lied "deliberately and repeatedly" to the grand jury.

How does this change that?

[RufusEarl]

8. I'm not surprised,

after all Fitzgerald works for Bu$h's DoJ!

[HereSince1628]

10. Interesting, So the judge supports an accused right to see the evidence?

Jee. The republicans sure feel different about classified info on Gitmo detainees.

[Zensea]

14. I think Libby has already seen the evidence

His lawyers likely have to.
What is at issue is whether it can be shown in court.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[AX10]

28. Exactly! It's that double standard again.

[Zensea]

11. I don't think people understand how court cases work

This is just one step in a very long battle.
Fitzgerald won't fold unless he wants to do so.
Indications so far have been that he has no intention of doing so.

[plasticsundance]

15. I hope you're right.

Perhaps we should look at this as part of the process. It's just discouraging that nothing has really broken so far that would really nail these treasonous thugs.

[plasticsundance]

12. We'll have to place hope in the Wilson's civil suit

[chapel hill dem]

36. I am concerned that the Plame/Wilson case rests on monetary

damages to Plame's career. Proceeds from a book deal may exceed the career damage and the case could be tossed.

I am not a lawyer, but this is what my lawyer friends are talking about. Maybe someone can help with this--or there may be another thread that answers my concern.

[plasticsundance]

48. I understand what you're saying ... but

I place hope it what the civil suit will reveal and bring to the light of day. You might not have an avalanche, but chipping way at the corrupt powers takes patience. Uh-oh ... sounds like I'm talking with the tongue of sedition ... which could lead me to being rendition. Oh well ... it's a far, far, better thing then I've ever done before. :woohoo:

[sabra]

13. Fitz accused Libby's defense of this awhile back...

Fitz is ready for the fight!

[Jim__]

16. Fitz seems like a fighter to me.

I don't think he'll fold over an expected defense tactic.

[bilgewaterbill]

41. I hope you are right.

This case needs to be brought to court.

[stillcool]

17. didn't Lawrence Walsh come across this...

issue with his Iran/Contra investigation...and...isn't this standard operating procedure, or expected? It seems "national security" is the blanket behind which criminals and their deeds hide.

[Gregorian]

18. All more the reason to not drop charges.

We're not talking blue dresses here.

[Peace Patriot]

19. It's MSNBC, so I wouldn't give it a lot of credibility. (War profiteers.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14941062/

It's THEIR title over what may or may not be the facts: "Fitzgerald given way out of Libby CIA leak case."

We don't know, a) how important the classified material is to Libby's defense; b) whether or not the judge would buy how important they say it is; c) what Fitzgerald would do if the classified info is NOT protected; and d) what the judge would do if Fitz pursues the case anyway.

Sounds like the judge is trying to pressure Fitz to open up the classified docs. The remark that Fitz has the option of dismissing the case may just be judgely pressure (and even sarcasm).

The TITLE of this article is very skewed. For instance, the language "given way out." It implies that Fitz would WANT a "way out." It really overstates what the judge did, and I think over-interprets it.

You've got to figure, with MSNBC, that they're working directly with Rove and Neo-Cons. So what we may be seeing here is fragment of their strategy: turn everything that occurs in the pre-trial motions into pressure/suggestion/threat aimed at Fitz.

IF Bush criminals become unprosecutable because of "national security" (a document game that the Bushites know how to play, by classifying EVERYTHING)(--except the identities of our covert agents) (...ahem), then we can ring the death knell for our justice system. That's Libby's defense. We'll see if it washes. I don't think this ruling decides it either way. It seems aimed at more openness--and may be meant to nudge Fitz AWAY from the secrecy claims of the Bush Junta. (i.e., 'you want to give up your case, by playing THEIR games?'). Fitz is in a pretty dicey position, but that's been true all along. We'll see what he does. He is a tenacious prosecutor--and one who can lay back, quietly building his case and giving nothing away, for eons, before he strikes.

I have thought, in recent days, that I wish he was the OTHER kind of prosecutor--the kind who advocates for the public against criminal enterprises in a public way, playing the media game, grabbing headlines, and exposing all the wrongdoing. But we should never forget how dangerous, and how powerful, these criminals are. There are none so dangerous, and none so powerful, in legal or political history. Just imagine a German prosecutor going after Hitler. It's comparable. (These people have slaughtered tens of thousands of people, without a thought.) So it may be best, in the end, that Fitz is proceeding quietly. I have by no means written him or his Plame investigation off. And we shouldn't be judging it on our own political time-line--with Stolen Election III staring us in the face, and hoping against hope that SOMEONE or SOMETHING will rescue us from our difficult duty as citizens of restoring our right to vote.

----------------------------------

Bust the Machines! Vote by Absentee Ballot this November!

If enough people do it--if everyone who despises the Bush Junta votes by Absentee Ballot (60% to 70%!)--the reign of these diabolical machines will be OVER.

[leveymg]

20. The people most threatened by this ruling are Bush and Cheney

The issue was over disclosure to the defense of classified briefings and documents given Bush and Cheney about Iran and Iraq WMDs -- the subject of contention between OSP and the CIA -- at the time that WHIG was moving to out Plame.

I doubt the Fitz is going to scrub the case because the public might learn the details of what the White House actually was told by the OSP and CIA on those subjects. Cheney and Bush might like to keep that secret, because it would reveal how and why WHIG acted to destroy Brewster Jennings, but that's not the prosecution's concern.

[H2O Man]

23. Right.

Mr. Fitzgerald is not going to drop the charge against Libby. He may ask another court to review the Judge Walton's decision. Or he may move straight ahead.

It is silly to assume that in a case like this, Mr. Fitzgerald will win every single pre-trial motion.

[saracat]

21. I have NO faith in Fitzgerald. I think Libby will be let go

and this will amount to nothing.I just can't believe the Duer's who are hoping against hope for a miracle. I hope I am wrong but I see this as a big nothing! I am not sure Fitzgerals was EVER serious. We all just were desperate for a hero. And he may not be one. Please let me be wrong!

[H2O Man]

22. How silly.

One should not expect Mr. Fitzgerald will win each and every pre-trial motion. The fact that Judge Walton made a ruling that favors the defense would hardly seem to support questioning if "Fitzgerals was EVER serious."

Mr. Fitzgerald has several options. This is hardly worth the hand-wringing and doubt expressed here.

[Fridays Child]

32. It's the slanted headline that has people freaking out here.

It practically states, outright, that Fitz is seeking a way out.

Everyting I know about Fitz tells me that's wrong. I believe that he will see this thing through regardless of where it leads. I also understand that, while we may not grasp the myriad legal technicalities, he not only grasps them but respects them, as well.

He's not influenced by all of the hand-wringing and speculation that this case has gerenerated and, for that, I greatly admire the man.

[saracat]

44. And exactly how do you know that? Are you personally acquainted with Fitz?

Or is this just a lovely fantasy you choose to, believe? I don't believe in fairy tales anymore and I don't believe Fitz is the hero who will rescue us. Sorry. There is no such thing as Fitzmas.

[Fridays Child]

45. My views no more require me to be personally acquainted...

...with Mr. Fitzgerald than do yours. Before you question how or why I form my opinions, you might want to consider subjecting your own to the same scrutiny. Either we are both entitled to our views or neither of us are.

[AntiFascist]

46. Is it true that there are rumors around DC that when...

the decision to indict Rove was made last May that it got derailed by Alberto Gonzales when he confronted Fitzgerald for prosecutorial misconduct relating to the 1993 WTC bombing trials, because involvement by Osama bin Ladin got overlooked? Is this why he is seeking a way out? Could it be that the smuggling and money laundering networks targeted by Plame/Wilson are the same ones utilized by the members of the Administration, consequently the "Iran/Contra-like" classified status of such information? (wmr Sept. 17-18, but paraphrased)

[gkhouston]

50. I don't know which rumors are floating around in DC

right now, but how can it be prosecutorial misconduct if you were following the extant law? Here's a statement Fitzgerald made about the Patriot Act, indicating that at the time they were investigating OBL, he was not (by law) permitted access to valuable sources. That could affect how he handled a case, no?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/102103fitzgerald.html

[AntiFascist]

56. The allegation is that Fitzgerald played a more active role...

in the cover-up of information linking bin Ladin to Ali Mohammed. He was eager to protect his and then New Jersey federal prosecutor Michael Chertoff's own cover-up of the U.S. intelligence links to the 1993 WTC bombings. Allegedly if Fitzgerald had gone ahead with the indictment of Rove then Gonzales would have exposed Fitzgerald's role in this. Looks like it's getting exposed anyway, if true.

[gkhouston]

57. sounds like yet another attempt to smear Fitzgerald.

I'm sure the neocons would like for this to be true, but I very much doubt that it is.

[AntiFascist]

61. Are you sure neocons would want to expose any links between....

US intelligence and terrorist acts on US soil? If this happened in the 1993 WTC bombings, then people might jump to the conclusion that it could have happened in 9/11. The PNAC statement about a new Pearl Harbor already makes them look pretty bad, and suspect.

[gkhouston]

63. you're expecting rational thought from that bunch? They're

desperate to shut Fitzgerald down before Cheney is actually forced to testify. They're probably rationalizing that this is a way to smear Fitzgerald and they can somehow blame Clinton, too.

[AntiFascist]

64. Keep in mind that Fitzgerald is a fellow Republican...

the thinking may have been: if Rove goes down then we all go down.

[gkhouston]

68. actually, he's not registered as being affiliated with any party.

he was "independent" for a while, until he found out that was an actual political party.

[cascadiance]

26. Damn... Mr. "State Secrets" privilege Reggie Walton at it again!

I swear if we get more power back in congress, that's one of the first judges we should look to impeach for enabling all of these coverups. I suspect that he hasn't invoked state secrets privilege in this case because so far they've only been used in civil cases like Sibel Edmonds and Maher Arar. Not in criminal cases, which have other legislation that is more applicable to be used to protect security of evidence and might get him more in legal hot water if he tried to use it directly.

But ol' Mr. redacted financial history Walton seems to be at his old bag of tricks!

[daleo]

33. The headline is written

like "they are making him an offer he can't refuse".

[Ian David]

34. Fitzgerald needs is permission to use aggressive questioning techniques

Someone in The White House committed Espionage and Treason.

Shouldn't they all be water-boarded until they cooperate?

[Harper_is_Bush]

39. Holy shit, what a ploy. And what's with the "misremembered" line? n/t

[PSPS]

40. I can't believe anyone at DU is surprised by this.

It's been obvious from the beginning that Fitzgerald, whose appointment was extralegal in the first place, was given this job to just burn up news cycles conveniently, divert attention, and run out the clock.

[KittyWampus]

42. you must not have been following this case very closely, if that's

your honest assesment.

[Mind Snapper]

47. By not following the news

she simply ignored all the disinformation surrounding the case and got to the heart of the matter..

[tinfoilinfor2005]

55. I don't know about any of that, but I do know that a crime occurred

and someone caused it. It cost an undercover CIA agent her career, jeopardized her life and probably the lives of other agents. That to this day nothing more has occurred to bring to justice the people who caused this crime boggles the mind. We now know several of the "outers" per their own admission, and yet they not only still walk the streets without indictment, but are even allowed to flaunt their "opinions" on network news talk shows. Yes, I share your cynicism and disappointment.

[Garbo 2004]

59. Fitzgerald appointed under Fed statute, not "extralegal." But I think

we've been through this before. Why keep repeating a false Republican talking point?

[PSPS]

66. With all due respect ...

... it's you who are parroting the republican talking point.

It is republicans who are letting this Fitzgerald fiasco run its course because they know its outcome. Fitzgerald has been performing exactly as he is scripted to do. Time will pass, nobody will be held accountable, and it will be too late to do anything about it.

The arcane legal theory you've espoused in the past about Fitzgerald's extralegal appointment somehow being "OK" because it conformed to a "legal opinion" of the bush justice department makes about as much sense as saying we don't torture because gonzales says our mutilating and murdering of captives doesn't fit with his interpretation of what is torture. The fact is that the federal statute specifically prohibits the appointment of a "government employee," and Fitzgerald is a government employee. His appointment would never have stood without the junta being in full control of congress.

[Garbo 2004]

67. Nothing "arcane" about the federal statutes cited in Fitz's appointment.

You apparently didn't understand that it isn't a "theory" but a matter of simple law based on the authorizing statutes.

And it doesn't rely on a legal opinion which was about allowing funds to be paid out of the Special Counsel appropriation. The legal opinion was not about the legitimacy of Fitzgerald's appointment; that was a given, since it was under Federal statute that allowed such appointments and delegations of authority by the AG. The reason I cited the opinion was that it pointed out that it was the statute, not the regulation that you repeatedly cited, that provided Fitz's authority. And the statute supercedes the regulation.

I deal with statutes and regs daily. Nothing "arcane" about authorization under a Fed statute that authorizes such delegations. You persist in citing a specific reg (which does not have the force of law and can be superceded by statute) as the only legitmate manner of appointment. And simply, it isn't.

[Az_lefty]

43. What's the problem? Put all these classified doc's in the public domain...

and let the chips fall where they may. This may uncover some very interesting things.

[Supersedeas]

51. jeopardize national security -- isn't that what the Defendant did by

outing her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Why would a special prosecutor need "a way out"?

Isn't the job of a prosecutor to prosecute?

[greccogirl]

58. Because this case

is turning into an embarrassment.

[gkhouston]

60. for whom? n/t

[CabalPowered]

62. George Ryan now sits in jail

and most of cronies to boot. That took almost five years. A case this complex is not going to be settled in a year.

edit: sp

[zara]

53. This is what Libby's strategy has been all along. This is only news

in that the widely predicted zero hour has arrived.

[cascadiance]

65. This article lays out Libby's AND Walton's strategy a little more clearly!

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1158921074125030.xml&coll=2

It shows that what Libby's lawyers are trying to do is put so much secret evidence in front of Walton that they say they REQUIRE for his defense that Walton will "have to" rule that it is admissable, and in so doing, he also has the means then of dismissing the case altogether, since the secrets involved can't be made public (according to State Secrets privilege or other laws protecting government secrets). Then he has an excuse to end the trial, no matter what Fitzgerald wants to do.

Let me say this very clearly! THESE PEOPLE (Walton and Libby, etc.) ARE ALL SCUM! They are part of bringing down this system of government.