NYT: Fitz Seen at Office of Bush's Personal Atty on Friday AM

[Rose Siding]

From TPM...

Anyone have any insight on this graf from 'Libby Charged' article in today's Times?

Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.

Remember, in his capacity as president, Mr. Bush's lawyer is Harriet Miers, the White House Counsel. This is his personal lawyer. In fact, I believe Sharp was hired particularly for this case.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006889.php

[texpatriot2004]

1. Yes, he hired this attny some time ago for this case alone. nm

[Loge23]

2. Interesting

I read that myself today and spent a few minutes of shower time trying to figure that out.
Possible: A courtesy call to advise the idiot president of the day's events. OR...???

[malaise]

11. Thay would not require his private

as opposed to WH lawyer. Interesting.

[jobycom]

13. Doubt it was an advisory courtesy call, because it's Bush's personal

attorney, not the White House attorney. Although maybe that's just the attorney Fitzgerald is used to dealing with for Bush.

Maybe Rove wasn't indicted because there is still a question over whether Bush or Rove is lying. Fitzgerald can have contradictory testimony and still not have proof which person is lying.

[tulsakatz]

24. Rove......

I believe Rove and Libby did lie consistently. I also believe that Rove must've had to give up some juicy bit of info which made Fitzgerald think he shouldn't charge him now.

About Bush's attorney, in the Dean article I posted below (msg 21), Dean says the reason for that is attorney - client priviledge. Apparently if he uses the Presidential counsel, that doesn't include attorney - client priviledge.

[jobycom]

29. You can't indict on what you believe, it has to proven

Fitzgerald may believe Rove lied consistently throughout, but he may not have evidence. For instance, if Rove says "I didn't tell Novak about Plame," and Novak says "Rove told me about Plame," one of them is lying. For Fitzgerald to indict either one, he has to be able to prove which one, and further, since the statements are under oath, he has to assume they are accurate until he prove they are lies. He knows one is a lie, but for the purpose of indicting Rove for leaking, let's say, he has to accept that Rove told him the truth unless he has evidence Rove didn't. Novak's statement is evidence, but by itself it is equal to Rove's, so neither can prove the other wrong.

Fitzgerald would not other witnesses who saw or heard Rove leak the info, or he would need corroborating testimony from someone else, or he would need phone records or something concrete. Let's say Novak claims "Rove told me this on May 10th when he called my cell phone at 9:00AM." Rove says "I never called him on that day, and don't even know his phone number." Fitzgerald could get phone records to prove Rove did call, but that's all the records would prove. They wouldn't prove what was talked about. So Fitzgerald could indict him for lying about making the phone call, but he would still not have proof that Rove leaked to Novak with that call. His only indictment would be perjury.

Let's say Rove countered that charge by saying "I lost my phone that week. Anyone could have made that call from my phone." Unless you proved that wrong, your proof of perjury is weakened. However, you have Novak's word that the phone call happened, (Remember, I'm making this up as an example), you have phone records that they happened, and you have the fact that Novak had learned classified information from someone, and only a certain number of people, including Rove, had that information to give. You still don't have proof, but you have circumstantial evidence. So you keep pushing away at that phone call, trying to find evidence, until you have proof or a preponderance o circumstantial evidence. Maybe you can get Rove to contradict himself. "How did some stranger who found your phone know Novak's number." "It was programmed in my phone, anyone could have found it." Well, then that contradicts the statement that he didn't know the phone number, so you have perjury again (Or else a misstatement).

That's where Rove is so damned slippery. He keeps all this in his mind, so he doesn't give contradictory answers, and when he does, he thinks of plausible excuses to weaken the contradiction.

At the bottom line, maybe Fitzgerald had a lot of contradictory statements but nothing that proved Rove was lying. Libby is nowhere near as clever as Rove. Rove starts the coverup before he even commits the crime.

Keep in mind, though, that putting Libby on trial might give Fitzgerald more evidence. Libby could reveal something new, or he could be put in a dramatic situation where he either has to give evidence against Rove or spend ten years in jail. On a stand, when the results could be immediate, Libby might flip.

And of course, Fitzgerald may just have so much on Rove he didn't want to indict him until he had the whole package ready. Seems unlikely, but it's possible.

[Rose Siding]

14. His schedule must have been killer tight yesterday

precluding any superfluous activity. I wonder if courtesy calls are a usual practice. If it were a nod to Bush's position, I'm not sure that his personal lawyer would be involved.

Hmmm

[Loge23]

26. I agree -

The courtesy thing could have been accomplished via the phone.
Gotta love the intrigue!

[Rose Siding]

28. And another thing- Why, with all of yesterday's intense coverage,

and with the press camped out on top of all the players, wasn't this "visit" chewed over by the talking heads?

Matthews could have gotten positively breathless over a detail like this.

Maybe I missed it. Maybe Fitz was seeing someone else at that location, though the Post could have determined that, you'd think.

[Halliburton]

3. I'm still outraged that Rove wasn't indicted

because of some email that seems like a pretty weak defense if you ask me.

[stepnw1f]

4. I Think He's Still Going Down

We'll see.

[Halliburton]

9. I think it could go either way

I just hope Fitzgerald isn't buying this load of bull.

[thinkingwoman]

6. why would you believe

the spin of Rove's attorney?

[Rose Siding]

8. We actually have no idea if that's why

That's just what some sources -probably Rove's lawyers- told the LAT.

If that was the reason, I agree, very lame -so lame as to really not be believable.

[Epiphany4z]

12. That is the frustrating thing

everyone knows he is dirty...problem is he is usually to dirty to catch. Lets hope he was over confident this time.

[applegrove]

5. Maybe Rover kept trying to put Fitz into a trance by spinning his eyes.

So Fitz went to visit Bush and said "get ahold of Kaa! and I'll say nice things about how you never interfered with my investigation or applied any negative pressure"?

Just guessing.

Plus I get to use this!!

[FreedomAngel82]

7. I wouldn't be surprised

He probably has two lawyers. This guy for this case and than Miers for everything else. I haven't heard of this guy before so he's probably trying to downplay this whole case as that appears to be what the talking points from their group is doing. I think Bush having this lawyer is a sign that he knows he's in deep crap. Why else would Bush have a lawyer if he wasn't involved somehow???

[jbnow]

22. He met with Sharp in 6/04

at the latest. It was for the CIA leak case specifically.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5123701/

He was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his team on 6/24/04

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cia.leak/
Bush was not under oath for the interview, which took place in the Oval Office for about an hour and 10 minutes and was conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald and "members of his team," according to the White House.

The president was joined by Jim Sharp, a personal attorney whom he retained for this case.

The White House would not say when the president hired Sharp, saying only that it was "recently."

[susu369]

10. A bit of trivia

James Sharp is also the attorney for Kenneth Lay.

[hlthe2b]

18. May have had to do with Ken Lay's upcoming trial?

This might be a red herring, as I thought I'd read that Fitz will be tackling the Enron trials as well (my God is he the ONLY competent prosecutor we have?!!!)

[susu369]

27. My understanding

(and memory) is that Sharp was Kenny Boy's attorney long before bu$h* hired him.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Stay tuned.

[leveymg]

15. That must have been an early meeting. Fitz was busy that day.

Sharp's office is many blocks from the Federal Court House.

http://lawyers.findlaw.com

Saturday, Oct. 29, 2005



James E. Sharp
Firm: Sharp & Associates

Address: 1215 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036


Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail:
Web site:
Blogs:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of Practice Litigation Percentage Bar Admissions

Education Honors Affiliations


Areas of Practice:

White Collar Criminal Defense
Litigation
Congressional Investigations
Government Relations
Criminal Trial Practice
Complex Litigation
International Law

Litigation Percentage:

85% of Practice Devoted to Litigation

Bar Admissions:

Oklahoma, 1965
District of Columbia, 1969
U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia

Education:

University of Oklahoma College of Law, Norman, Oklahoma
J.D.

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
B.S.

Honors and Awards:

Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers

Professional Associations and Memberships:

The Barristers


The District of Columbia Bar


Past Employment Positions:

U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Assistant United States Attorney, 1968 - 1973

U.S. Navy JAG Corp, Lieutenant, 1965 - 1968

Birth Information:

Tulsa, Oklahoma

West Practice Categories:

RICO Act, International Transactions, Grand Jury Proceedings, Criminal Fraud, Federal, White Collar Crimes, Election & Campaign Law, Government Relations & Lobbying, Legislative Practice, Whistleblower/Qui Tam, Wrongful Termination -- Employer, Casinos, Lotteries, Law Enforcement Agencies, Directors' & Officers' Liability Insurance, Unions, Class Actions -- Plaintiff, Complex Litigation, Federal Trial Practice, International Trade Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation, State Trial Practice, Securities Fraud & Insider Trading, Securities Regulation

[KoKo]

16. Maybe just a "courtesy call" to let the lawyer know Libby was being

indicted and to warn Bush, so he could deal with it. Sounds innocent to me. It's "not nice" to not tell your P-Resident" when one of his top Advisers is being indicted on Five Counts of criminal behavior.
Fitz does work for the US Justice Department.:shrug:

[hang a left]

17. Maybe he was giving him pause? eim

[symbolman]

19. Sharp is Bush's CRIMINAL attorney

he was hired to defend Bush in this action.

James Dean said this is unprecedented considering these circumstances and that according to Dean BUSH has a REAL Problem if he had to hire Sharp..

Dean is ALWAYS on the mark.

Bush is screwed in this, along with Rove - Believe it.

The more time they spend on someone the worse it's going to be for them..

Scooter is the small time thug that robbed a liquor store, these guys are the MOB and will be harder to take down, but Fitz the Bulldog is nipping at their heels, and Libby is just the appetizer..

I know, I studied this for over a year when I made "Rove's War" my 2 DVD film at my site TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.COM - it's all in there..

[pacalo]

20. Could it be that Fitzgerald was asking for *'s sworn testimony

about his dealings with Rove...just to clarify (wink, wink) certain stubborn issues. If * has nothing to hide, why not help Fitzgerald out?

[tulsakatz]

21. John Dean wrote an article........

........about the serious implications of Bush hiring his own lawyer. Keep in mind, he wrote this in June of '04:

What Might a Private Attorney Advise Bush to Do?

It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely.

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.

What advice might Bush get from a private defense counsel? The lawyer I consulted opined that, "If he does have knowledge about the leak and does not plan to disclose it, the only good legaladvice would be to take the Fifth, rather than lie. The political fallout is a separate issue."

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."

That may not stop Bush from trying to invoke executive privilege, however - or at least from talking to his attorney about the option. As I have discussed in one of my prior columns, Vice President Dick Cheney has tried to avoid invoking it in implausible circumstances - in the case that is now before the U.S .Supreme Court. Rather he claims he is beyond the need for the privilege, and simply cannot be sued.

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

[Pithy Cherub]

23. What if Fitz is doing the ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

He wants Bush on the record against Cheney!

Let's say Bush declared no knowledge in specific but awareness in general that Cheney was heading up the responses to the IWR. Fitz follows his legal plan, who, what, where, when, how and why. Per Fitz the WHY is an unknown. But let's say Fitz absolutely has Libby dead to rights and Libby, Cheney's little helper, won't turn. Let's say Rove gave just enough to say, if you don't believe me ask MY boss. Rove and Libby lead back to the Vice President. The President has to pick which team he is playing on and goes with Rove. Lot's of tension between Bush and his political VP lately.

The question that remains unknown is why. It goes to the level of criminal intent and that is the piece that Fitz publicly acknowledged over and over again yesterday.

Oh, this is just rife with possibilities! :popcorn:

[Boo Boo]

25. James E. Sharp defended Richard Secord during Iran/Contra

When Bush hired Sharp it was the first big indicator that he was worried; he was going to the High Crimes 'A' Team. When he nominated Roberts for SC (wrote legal brief for Bush Daddy during Iran/Contra), then immediately elevated him to Chief Justice when the slot opened, that was big hint number two---not conclusive, but it sure makes ya wonder. When he tried to get Miers on the SC that was just bald-faced: her only qualification is loyalty to Bush (and the fact that she's inside the WH that is being threatened by Fitz).

With Miers, I think Bush blinked. Seems to me he's so worried that he felt like he had to go for a sure thing; someone he could count on completely. That wasn't a political appointment in any way (except for the fact that she would be more palatable to Dems than other potential candidates). There didn't seem to be any calculus involving playing to a certain part of the base, etc.---he just tried to put his own private SC Justice on the bench. Now why would he do that?

I sure hope Fitz has more than Libby at this point. I just don't think Libby will crack. In spite of the gratuitously profane analyses of Steve Gilliard and Jane Hamsher, Libby doesn't face 30 years (unless he betrays Bush), he's way past caring about being disbarred, and he knows his ass is really in Bush's hands, not Fitzgerald's. If other parts of the team start to crack, then it could be every man for himself, but right now Bush holds Libby's get out of jail free card and I can't see him doing anything to jeopardize that.

Niger. Covert operation against the United States. Anyone that had knowledge before, during, or after the fact, and acted to cover-up or otherwise lend aid, is potentially in some seriously deep doo-doo.

Will the truth (whatever it might be) come out?