AP: Wilson Challenges Subpoena in CIA Case

[Eugene]

Wilson Challenges Subpoena in CIA Case

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

(12-20) 14:33 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force
him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.

Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense
witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that
was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters
regarding Wilson's wife, outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Plame and Wilson have
sued Libby and other Bush administration officials, accusing them of plotting to
leak Plame's identity as retribution for Wilson's criticism of prewar intelligence
on Iraq.

"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either
for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case,"
Wilson's attorneys wrote.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/20/national/w143317S61.DTL

[Infinite Hope]

1. Well, it seems to me Wilson should have nothing to hide.

So no reason to challenge this, especially when he might not testify anyway.

[Tempest]

2. That's not the point

"Mr. Libby should not be permitted to compel Mr. Wilson's testimony at trial either for the purpose of harassing Mr. Wilson or to gain an advantage in the civil case," Wilson's attorneys wrote.


Wilson is right to not want to testify since he is a party in the civil case filed against Libby.

[RProser]

8. Courts have pretty wide latitude regarding such issues, and

normally, the defense is given every reasonable opportunity to present evidence in the name of providing the accused a fair trial. In case of a conflict, the criminal case will win out. If he is overly concerned about the civil case, Mr. Wilson could ask Fitz to seek dismissal of the charges. And if the case starts to go bad, dismissal would be better for Wilson than an acquittal.

Potential advantage in a pending civil suit doesn't exempt a witness - and it shouldn't matter since civil cases are based upon full disclosure during discovery. The question before the judge will be whether Mr. Wilson has relevant 1st hand information relating to the facts in the case. I suspect that Mr. Wilson will be found to have opened the door himself when he made pronouncements about guilt or innocence in the case. If I was defending the case and Mr. Wilson had gone to the media accusing Karl Rove, then Mr. Wilson would probably be the 1st witness I called in order to start establishing reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. He would followed by any reporter to whom Wilson had spoke. It would be a very long parade of people repeating the theory that someone else was guilty. I'd also be likely to recall him just before closing arguments.

Most of the time, civil trials are delayed when there is a corresponding criminal case. If a civil case is sent to trial before a related criminal case, the respondent (civil defendant) may exercise 5th amendment rights to remain silent because he/she is in criminal jeopardy. If the criminal case is complete, a respondent cannot take the 5th for any matter already adjudicated. It's the judge that rules (as a matter of law) whether the civil respondent remains in criminal jeopardy or not.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

9. Wilson is forcing Cheney's hand.

"The question before the judge will be whether Mr. Wilson has relevant 1st hand information relating to the facts in the case. "

This statement is correct. Mr. Wilson did not know Mr. Libby,however, and had no idea how "distracted" he might have been when he LIED to the grand jury. Therefore, Ambassador Wilson has no relevant evidence to offer - no first-person accounts, no contact via e-mail or messenger or otherwise.

Methinks Judge Walton is about to disappoint the Libby defense team yet again.

[Marnieworld]

13. you realize of course

that Libby is being charged with perjury and obstruction. Whether or not Karl Rove committed these crimes has no bearing on Libby's guilt or innocence. Even more importantly any statements by Wilson about Rove's guilt in the leak has no relevance to whether Libby committed perjury or obstruction. Completely unrelated. "Someone else was guilty" you wrote but guilty of what? Not the crimes accused here.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi RProser!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[RProser]

19. Thanks! I've been reading a while and decided to jump in now and then n/t

[xchrom]

3. this should not turn into a testimony about personalities.

and when liddy calls wilson -- then this has a chance of turning something that isn't about evidence.

[Nickster]

4. He's not the one on trial. I understand why he doesn't want to testify. Scooter is going to try and

use Amb Wilson and divert the attention from Scooter to Joe Wilson. They are going to try out every right wing smear in court that we've already heard played out in the press. I wouldn't want to be a sideshow act either.

[tridim]

5. Do "right wing smears" hold up in court, under oath?

Somehow I doubt it unless the judge is a Bushbot.

[Nickster]

6. Do you waste the time going over them and casting doubt upon what Scooter did?

There are so many smears out there, they are going to try and fling as many of them as they can at the wall and see what sticks.

[tridim]

7. Right, and most of the smears are flat out lies

Will Libby and Cheney's lawyers allow them lie under oath? Court is a bit more serious than Sunday morning on Faux Newz. :)

I hope they do lie, that'd make the case simpler for the good guys.

[Tellurian]

11. A provative strategic move by Libby's attorney..

Fmr Ambassador Wilson is married to the plaintiff in the suit.

This move on Libby's atty's part; I've never heard of before.

Twisted!

[spanone]

18. This case is about Libby lying to the Grand Jury. Has NOTHING to do with Wilson.

I don't blame Mr. Wilson.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

10. I didn't make my point: Forrcing Cheney

Wilson's case is brilliant! Any way you look at it serves his cause, because he can both avoid a sort of "pre-discovery" in the civil suit and at the same time press Cheney to testify.

And in my estimation, both Bush and Cheney lied when they testified before the GJ. The ONLY way Cheney can avoid charges and conviction is by pleading the 5th. He's is toast no matter the outcome of Wilson's civil case OR the "Feeding Bullshit to the Grand Jury" suit brought by the most esteemed Mr. Patrich Fitzgerald, Esq. against Scooter.

[Tellurian]

12. Can anyone explain this extraordinary move

and what is the expected outcome by the defense?

[raysr]

14. They're going to try

and trap him on something. The Martha Stewart ploy.

[earlybelle]

16. They are just trying to trap Wilson in some sort of contradiction.

He should not testify on the ground of self-incrimination.

[Tellurian]

17. Thanks, earlybelle and raysr..

this will be very interesting and well worth watching as this drama unfolds.
I'm hoping Wilson backs himself with the right attorney.

[RProser]

20. Wilson has the right to claim the 5th - but that applies when his

testimony would confess guilt to a crime. He isn't accused of anything is he? It still has the potential to get very, very messy. I could easily envision the following exchange - and if I was defending Libby, I would do everything I could to get it in front of the jury during the defense and reinforce it during closing:

Defense: Mr. Wilson - what did you understand your wife's true employment to be?

Wilson: A CIA officer.

Defense: Were you ever advised that her CIA affiliation was classified?

Wilson: Yes.

Defense: What classification level and any special handling did you believe her CIA affiliation to be?

Wilson: SECRET - No Foreign Dissemination - that means that only US citizens with the clearance and need to know could know her true employment. A foreign ally with a SECRET clearance could not be told.

Defense: During your distinguished government Service, were you trained in the protection of classified information.

Wilson: Yes.

Defense: Did you take your obligations to protect classified information seriously.

Wilson: I took it very seriously.

Defense: What was your understanding of the requirements to protect SECRET information?

Wilson: Access to ANY classified information requires the proper security clearance and a need to know the information for conducting official business. SECRET information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure to anyone without a "need to know" the information for the conduct of government business and a SECRET or TOP SECRET Security Clearance. SECRET information must be stored in facilities approved for secure storage at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level and must be transmitted on systems accredited at the SECRET or TOP SECRET level.

Defense: Did you ever disclose your wife's CIA affiliation to anyone without a SECRET or TOP SECRET security clearance?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever disclose your wife's CIA affiliation to anyone who did not need that information to conduct government business?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: What level position did you reach in Government service:

Wilson: I was an Ambassador in the State Department's Foreign Service.

Defense: Did your job require you to meet and work with Foreign National officials of other governments?

Wilson: Yes.

Defense: Did you ever disclose classified information to an official of a Foreign Government without proper authorization?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever disclose your wife's CIA affiliation to a foreign national?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever disclose your wife's CIA affiliation to a member of the media?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever disclose her CIA affiliation to a political operative of the Democratic Party - one who was not a government employee with a SECRET Security Clearance and a need to know?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever remove SECRET or TOP SECRET information from a secure facility without authorization?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever store SECRET or TOP SECRET information in a facility or container not approved for that level of storage?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Defense: Did you ever transmit SECRET or TOP SECRET information over an unsecure telephone or ADP system not approved for transmission of SECRET or TOP SECRET information?

Wilson: I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Wild Card - Wilson could then be granted "use immunity" and be required to answer the questions, and the government could not prosceute him for it.

Now what would the jury be thinking after all that? Of course, the questions and answers could be (almost certainly would be) introduced into evidence in his civil trial. If Wilson himself had ever disclosed it to an unauthorized person, it would affect the civil trial profoundly.

[Paulie]

21. Wilson is NOT on trial! WHY WOULD HE TAKE THE 5TH????

I totally don't understand your scenario. Libby lying to the Grand Jury and obstructing justice has NOTHING to do with Ambassador Wilson and his outed CIA wife Plaime.

Ambassador Wilson has no material facts to add to why LIBBY lied and obstructed justice. He and his spouse are the VICTIMS.

Ambassador Wilson will NOT be taking the stand, the Judge will not allow it. And will get even more upset with the defense and their tactics.

[RProser]

22. You don't have to be on trial to take the 5th You can take it whenever

you give un-immunized testimony that you believe might incriminate you for any crime, charged or un-charged.

In a s*$t-load of cases, justice grants a witness immunity from prosecution that would otherwise result from truthful testimony. A drug-dealer who witnessed a cop being gunned-down would almost certainly be granted immunity in return for putting the killer away.T

he rules of course are that for the immunity to hold, the testimony must be truthful and nothing held back. Otherwise, the immunity can be pierced and prosecution follow. After the witness has immunity, the 5th cannot be taken since he/she isn't in jeopardy from any truthful testimony.

Almost NOBODY is so squeaky clean that immunity wouldn't come in handy. Defense attorneys love it because it gets the client off the hook legally. Sometimes the witness still doesn't want to testify because of other ramifications (pissed-off wife, angry public, turned-off voters), but after immunity is granted, it isn't optional.

Please keep in mind though that the illustration I gave about Wilson's testimony is just creative writing because I don't have have any of the details of his background, assignments,etc. But it also represents precisely what Libby's defense attorney would absolutely love to have in court.

[Paulie]

23. He's not a WITNESS to the facts

The facts of Libby lying to the Grand Jury and Obstructing Justice.

I could try to call you to the stand to talk about why I took the candy bar from the store, because I happened to know where your spouse worked as my crime boss told me to talk about your spouse. It would matter about as much as ingredients make up the candy bar. They are not MATERIAL.

[RProser]

24. I believe that some of this case is going to focus on what

did Libby know and, more importantly, from whom did he know it. It will be important to determine what Libby knew from official government sources - and repeated, and to distinguish that from what Libby might have learned from other than government sources and repeated. It goes to the reported key defense issue of reaching overload in the input and output of information and would be held relevant.

So don't be too surprised when the judge doesn't exclude Wilson from the witness list.

Most fudges don't like being reversed. If he rules Wilson in as a witness, and it turns out Wilson has little of importance to say, the case is not materially harmed. But if he excludes Wilson, then that opens a major avenue of appeal in the event of a conviction.

Regardless of the left or right political posturing by an individual - I'm usually in favor of letting them repeat under oath what they say out of the courtroom. If they are honest and it's consistent, good on them. If, when put under oath, a totally different story emerges than what they say in public, then they are not the kind of person we need to listen to in the first place.

[Paulie]

25. But Wilson wasn't a government source, he left during the Clinton years

The trial isn't even about the leaking of classified information. It's about Libby's apparent lying about the who/what/when/where/why questions to the Grand Jury and the associated obstruction charges stemming from said lying in determining who IS/ARE the leakers of the classified information which was Ms. Plames status at the CIA; that of a NOC work regarding nuclear weapons proliferation in certain central asian countries.

Bottom line, several people give testimony, and yours is the only one that doesn't match up, even after repeated questioning and chances to correct, it doesn't look good, don't you think?

Bringing up Ambassador Wilson is a DISTRACTION from the actuals of Libby's criminal case.

[RProser]

26. But it is about his state of mind - and reportedly, the defense is

going after the allegation that he lied to the grand jury about what he knew from which source and who he told. The defense is saying Libby was not wrong when he said he was confused about having heard it elsewhere - other than in official documents/conversations.

That opens the door to determine if in fact the information he allegedly knew only from official sources could have come from the unofficial rumor mill/social circuit. If he can establish that it was, then it strengthens the defense about the confusion with all sorts of information coming from multiple sources.

The defense doesn't need to prove he's not guilty - by law, he's innocent until a jury finds that he isn't. All the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt about his intent - and guilt for this allegation requires specific intent - general intent only would result in acquittal.

Since the judge is allowing this defense to be pursued, it is highly probably that he allow witnesses that either support or refute it. If I were a gambler, I'd say that Ambassador Wilson should break out a clean shirt and a nice striped tie for court.

[Cameron27]

27. Interesting.

Thanks for the info. I hope Wilson doesn't have to testify, but you make a pretty logical case for assuming he may have to.

[Spazito]

28. The defense can put anyone on their witness list, it does NOT mean

they will necessarily be allowed to call those witnesses. As Wilson is contesting this, it will be up to Judge Walton to decide whether Wilson would have anything pertinent to the defense or not. Given the charges are specific to Libby's testimony under oath to both the FBI and the grand jury, testimony in which Wilson was in NO way involved either in Libby's workplace or during the times Libby testified, Judge Walton may well rule against the defense team and deem their request for Wilson to testify as fishing and not relevant to the specifics of the case.