Defense Attorney Claims Fitzgerald Believes Cheney told Libby to Leak Plame's Identity

[babylonsister]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jason_le_070223_defense_attorney_cla.htm

Defense Attorney Claims Fitzgerald Believes Cheney told Libby to Leak Plame's Identity/from the transcript!

by jason leopold


It was the defense attorney representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby who first told jurors during closing arguments in the perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial Tuesday that the government believes Vice President Dick Cheney told Libby to leak the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to a New York Times reporter in July 2003 to undermine the credibility of her husband, a critic of the Iraq War.

Additional information about what the prosecution believes Cheney's role in the leak may have been surfaced in closing arguments this week. The jury enters its third full day of deliberations Monday to decide whether Libby is guilty or innocent of five felonies. Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his deputy have been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the vice president and Libby and that the prosecution believes Libby may have lied to federal investigators and a grand jury to protect Cheney.

At issue is whether a set of talking points Cheney dictated in July 2003, that the vice president's former chief of staff was instructed to discuss with the media, included information about Plame. The discussions with the media were supposed to be centered around Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and the fact that he accused the White House of misrepresenting intelligence related to Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, according to testimony by Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director.

snip//

Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors, "You know what? said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife . We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

Fitzgerald's impassioned presentation to the jury Tuesday suggests that he strongly believes Cheney instructed Libby to leak Plame's identity to Miller in July 2003. "If you think that the vice president and the defendant 'Scooter' Libby weren't talking about during the week where the vice president writes that sent on a junket, in July 6 column, the vice president moves the number one talking point, 'not clear who authorized , if you think that's a coincidence, well, that makes no sense," Fitzgerald told jurors.

Prior to Fitzgerald's rebuttal, Wells had told jurors that Libby's meeting with Miller came at the behest of President Bush, for the sole purpose of providing her with information from the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. The leak of the NIE to Miller was aimed at beating back Wilson's criticism of the administration's use of prewar intelligence - not to disclose Plame's identity.

more...

[speedoo]

1. You might want to modify your post, since there is a gag order.

When I saw your heading, I was startled, because I know the lawyers aren't supposed to be talking about the case.

Thanks for posting, anyhow!

[babylonsister]

2. Does it matter that the writer isn't a lawyer on the case? I just

copied/pasted from opednews.

[speedoo]

3. I noticed that, which is what got me over my "startled" feeling.

I just thought you might want to keep others from having my reaction.

Obviously I think OpEd News should have titled it differently.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Babylon Sister, your cut and paste is garbled because DU edits out any

material enclosed by brackets. So all the explanatory connections are missing. I suggest you cut and paste again, as a comment, and replace the brackets with parentheses.

The article itself is not garbled, and is well worth reading. Leopold is absolutely correct about Well's statements and Fitzgerald's. I read them as first transcribed by Firedoglake--quite good live transcription--but Truthout.org has apparently obtained the court recorder's transcription. In any case, it was very clear what each side said. And this is why people who have been following the case closely expect more from Fitzgerald (--possibly a GJ report naming Cheney as "unindicted co-conspirator, and maybe Bush as well--and giving the matter over to Congress--that's my guess). The trial revealed strong evidence against Cheney (and some on Bush), and, in his closing, Fitzgerald pointed strongly at Cheney, in discussing Libby's motives for lying and state of mind leading up to the lies. He lied, a) because, prior to speaking to the FBI, he had learned that outing Plame/Brewster-Jennings could have caused deaths in Plame's counter-proliferation network (and he was worried about his own criminal liability); and b) to cover for Cheney, and misdirect Fitzgerald to Tim Russert and others, as the ones who told Libby Plame's identity, when the evidence clearly establishes that it was Cheney.

Fitzgerald's closing remarks are stunning. The Silent Man finally lays it all out--or as much of it as he needs to, to convict Libby of perjury and obstruction. He may have more; in fact, I'm pretty sure that he does, because he is a very economical and tight-lipped prosecutor. But what he has laid out in this trial, and pulls together particularly well in his closing remarks, would be way, way more than what is needed for immediate impeachment of Dick Cheney, if we weren't living in BushWorld, with a Congress that, even with the Democratic victories in the elections, is still not very representative of the American people*, and not all that into the rule of law, apparently. But perhaps this will give them true grit. Fitzgerald has certainly shown them what it looks like.


----------


*(The result of Diebold/ES&S "trade secret," proprietary vote counting--the people had to outvote the machines; the evil of money and war profiteering; and the fact that only 1/3 of the Senate was up for reelection in '06. There are still a lot of Bush "pod people" and other warmongers in Congress.)

[youngdem]

5. Libby would not have acted without orders, and he worked for only one man

And that man had motive, opportunity, and a lot to gain by discrediting Wilson. Cheney and Libby clearly talked about it, and all testimony pretty much showed Libby's version of events to be a lie.

He is clearly covering for his boss, in order that he go down for this and not Cheney, with the deal being that if Rove, Cheney and Bush are spared, Libby will get pardoned for his loyalty, but if he rats, he is fucked.

IMO.

[Peace Patriot]

6. A minor correction: Libby was actually a special assistant to the President

as well as Cheney's aide. And it's become clearer, in this trial, that Bush was likely okaying orders to Libby through Cheney.

I don't know that a pardon is all that inevitable--or even that relevant. Bush (who lawyered up early, even as his spokesmen were stating in public that he would fire anyone involved in the Plame leak), and Cheney (clearly in Fitzgerald's sites--he pointed to him quite strongly in the layout of this case, and in his closing remarks), are both in jeopardy, at this point. My guess (having followed Traitorgate closely) is that Fitzgerald is preparing a GJ report that will name at least Cheney as an "unindicted co-conspirator" (and will leave it to Congress, as the appropriate power to deal with it). Fitzgerald has very great powers, and no time limit. He has access to DC GJ's at any time. He has laid out Libby's motives for lying very clearly, as, 1) his own legal jeopardy (prior to speaking to the FBI, he'd just learned that outing Plame/Brewster-Jennings could have caused deaths in that network of deep cover WMD counter-proliferation agents and contacts); and 2) covering up for Cheney, by inventing a story that he learned of Plame's identity from newsman Tim Russert, when the evidence at trial shows plainly that it was Cheney who told him who she was and what she did.

Fitzgerald is a bulldog of a prosecutor. I don't think he can, in conscience, leave this alone. And bear this in mind. A prosecutor's responsibility, in a court trial, is to prove his case against the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt"--because the consequence to the accused is loss of liberty. But that is NOT the burden of proof in an impeachment proceeding. Gross malfeasance has a lesser burden of proof. The proof is entirely at Congress' discretion. And the consequence is removal from office--not loss of liberty. Fitzgerald has laid out a very strong evidentiary case against Libby on lying and obstruction, and if the jury considers the evidence, they will convict him. (Indications so far are that the jury is taking it seriously and looking closely at the evidence.) But the case against Cheney has been OBSTRUCTED by Libby. So there are a few dots yet to be connected (--at least in the evidence at trial; Fitzgerald may have more, that he didn't need to use). The gross malfeasance (of Cheney) is there, for sure. And to some extent for Bush. (For instance, a Republican lobbyist faxed a copy of Novak's article to Karl Rove before it was published. Rove and Bush had an obligation, at that point, to act to protect Plame's identity--and they did nothing--a huge crime of omission.) But to prove conspiracy and commission of a felony would probably need more direct evidence that the order was given by Bush/Cheney to out her and her network. That's what Libby is no doubt covering up for. That is probably why Fitzgerald has not indicted them. But that is no bar to impeachment.

Many have wondered why Fitzgerald hasn't indicted Rove, and gave Ari Fleischer immunity--and has not indicted anyone on the actual crime. The Libby trial revealed much more that points to why. All of these people were taking orders from the effective "commander in chief" (Cheney) or from the "commander in chief" (Bush). It doesn't excuse their actions, but it does help explain how Fitzgerald has proceeded. He is after the order-givers, and he has been obstructed from obtaining "the smoking gun" for that reason--for the reason of Bush and Cheney's power over all of these others. Congress, on the other hand, does not need a "smoking gun." (The rightwing noise machine will of course say that they do--but they don't). That Cheney divulged Plame's identity to Libby, and sent him on a mission to discredit her husband, armed with this information, and then sat back as Libby spread knowledge of Plame's identity all over Washington DC, and that neither he nor Bush took any action to protect her and her network, is a slamdunk impeachment. It doesn't matter if it's a felony. It doesn't matter if it was conspiracy. The order is clearly and plainly implied in their crime of omission. They knew what was going on. They failed to stop it. You don't even have to get to the truth that they STARTED it (although there is plenty of evidence of that).

So, given these facts--which are already on record--if they pardon Libby, they are admitting their own guilt--and giving Congress the "smoking gun," whether Libby admits to his obstruction or not. I think Libby may be irrelevant, at this point--another soldier down (--except perhaps on OTHER crimes, or the deeper crimes that lay behind Traitorgate). Libby's testimony would make it EASIER to impeach Cheney and Bush (and counter rightwing noise), but it is not crucial. Also, if Libby is pardoned, Fitzgerald can then haul him back before a GJ, and compel testimony under threat of additional perjury charges (Libby could then tell the truth, and be protected--but if he lies again, no pardon can help him. Bush cannot pardon him for FUTURE lying on the Bush Junta's behalf).

I think that Cheney's strategy of having Libby as his firewall, in furtherance of the PNAC plan to invade Iran (I think that is what Libby's believes he is protecting), is falling apart. Fitzgerald has been so brilliant, he has maneuvered these numerous perps and witnesses to give him nearly everything he needs to SEE the conspiracy, and lay it out, even if he can't definitively prove it, to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of court convictions. But we are not talking about crime bosses here (--except figuratively). We are talking about the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT of the United States. They are supposed to be a cut above crime bosses. They are sworn to uphold the law. It is at their word that people die. They hold the fate of the world in their hands, with nukes. They are the highest officers in our land! They have betrayed that trust, as we know, in a hundred different serious ways, but none of them with a prosecutor like Fitzgerald on the case. And I think he intends to hammer it home, Libby conviction or no Libby conviction, pardon or no pardon.

[grasswire]

7. thank you for your insights

I still believe we must look deeper into motive.

I believe the ultimate goal of Cheney was not stopping Joe Wilson from criticizing the administration.

I believe the ultimate goal of Cheney was to stop Valerie Plame and her co-workers from exposing the WMD fraud that Cheney was perpetrating on the American people. The covert people tracking WMD could blow Cheney's lies up. They had to be stopped. Exposing Brewster Jennings as a CIA front was totally an act of sabotage of our intelligence capability. The "narrative" of Joe Wilson, the forged papers, the "boondoggle" and all of that is just more sand-kicking.

Cheney stopped the CIA from exposing his game by taking down a covert operation that was monitoring weapons trading in the Middle East. It's not about Plame-Wilson, ultimately. It's about something vastly more sinister.

[speedoo]

10. The only thing that stops me from buying into your theory, grasswire...

is this:

How does taking down Brewster Jennings keep the truth that you refer to from coming out?

If you are right, surely someone in the CIA would want everyone to know the truth, without waiting for Fitz, or Congress, to lay it out.

[grasswire]

11. wasn't Plame tasked with monitoring proliferation?

Didn't exposure of Brewster Jennings shut down her work? And, ostensibly, her network?

Okay, perhaps the quashed "truth" lies in arms trade and Brewster Jennings could have blown that wide open. The war profiteering in arms trade surely has trails that lead to people friendly with Cheney.

I just believe that something deeper than Joe Wilson's "boondoggle" drove Cheney. I hope Fitzgerald is brave enough to consider the shadowy figures, the Italian forgery, the Ledeen connection, etc.

[speedoo]

12. Don't get me wrong. I can certainly see the logic of what you are saying.

Back when the WMD search was underway in Iraq, I was one of those who believed WMD's would be "found", because Bushco had placed them there, in the early days of the invasion. I was certainly puzzled when none were found.

And if Cheney was evil enough to attempt to place those weapons, he was certainly evil enough to take down B-J by outing Plame.

But if B-J, or people close to them, in fact foiled the WMD "placement" in Iraq, I also have to believe that there is still some way to get to the truth about that. If there is some reason that truth can only come out as a result of Fitz' work, I just can't figure out what that reason might be.

[grasswire]

13. ah..

I didn't think that the takedown of BJ foiled any faux placement of WMD. I think that the takedown kept the lack of WMD from being exposed by BJ. I'm not sure there was ever a plan for faux placement of WMD.

But the whole matter is likely much deeper than I can even imagine.

[speedoo]

14. "But the whole matter is likely much deeper than I can even imagine."

I'm finding it much less difficult to imagine such things.

[Peace Patriot]

15. I agree, Grasswire. What did they really have to fear from the war profiteering

corporate news monopoly newsstream in 2003? Remember how bad it was? Why would they fear an op-ed by an ex-diplomat? If they had left it alone, it would have drown in the river of rightwing warmongering blather. And if they had wanted to "get" Wilson for it anyway--vindicate SOBs that they are--why do it in such a way as to really and truly piss off the CIA, and put so many top Bushites at risk of treason charges? Surely they have subtler, less risky ways to punish people.

But even if you grant hubris, vindictiveness, and stupidity, it still does not adequately explain what they did it, nor the way they did it. Their actions speak of panic (they contacted six reporters in one week, trying to get Plame outed!). What would they be panicked about? Another bit of antiwar dissent? Hardly. As the Libby trial so well reveals, they easily planted their counter "talking points" all over a compliant media. And they really didn't give a crap what the American people thought anyway. 56% of the American people opposed the invasion (Feb. '03). Not a concern. They did it anyway, in the supreme confidence that the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" of 2002 (electronic voting, controlled by their buds) would take care of everything. Which it did.

No, there is a concentration of panicky-looking activity by top Bushites in the weeks of July 6-22, 2003, that needs further explaining. In the known narrative, it is tagged to July 6, and the publication of Wilson's article (calling the Niger/Iraq nuke allegation into question). I noticed a date of July 7, 2003, for when Tony Blair was informed that David Kelly--the Brits top WMD expert, who had been whistleblowing to the BBC on the "sexed up" pre-war intel, starting in late May--"could say some uncomfortable things" (Hutton report). Kelly had been outed to his bosses (mysteriously), and interrogated at a "safe house" in the first week of July. Blair got the info on what else Kelly knew on July 7. Plame was outed July 14 (by Novak). Kelly was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, July 18; his office and computers were searched. THEN, on July 22, Novak ADDITIONALLY outed the entire Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation, worldwide network, that Plame headed. A truly incredible coincidence of dates. What could Kelly have known--beyond what he and Wilson were saying (exaggerated WMD claims)--that could have gotten him killed?

My guess: A nefarious scheme to actually plant nukes in Iraq, to be "found" by the US troops who were "hunting" for them, as part 2 of the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries scam. I think they may have been deliberately pushing these "crude" (easily detectable) forgeries to entice the CIA into a known no-nukes-in-Iraq position; thence to the triumphant "find"--which would both justify the war and cement Bush's and Blair's political fortunes, and discredit the CIA. But something went wrong. The planting of the nukes was foiled--possibly by someone working in deep cover on counter-proliferation. Maybe even Kelly himself. (He was in a good position to hear about it anyway.)

Now, go back and revisit what is known of the Bushites' behavior in the weeks of July 6-22 (and since then--including Libby telling baldfaced lies to the FBI and the GJ). This theory--that they were trying to plant the weapons--really fits the pieces together, and answers many puzzles (on both sides of the Atlantic). I'm also wondering about Rumsfeld's ouster (with no change of policy in Iraq). He would have been the operational chief of this scheme, probably hatched out of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. Cheney is the political end of it--getting that Niger/Iraq nuke allegation put back into Bush's speech (after it had been debunked by several agencies). Constantly pushing the "mushroom cloud" lie. And, finally, dealing with the political and legal fallout from Rumsfeld's failure.

Yes, there were LOTS of reasons for the Bush Junta to want to be rid of honest WMD counter-proliferation specialists--not the least of which is Iran. And I think they did have a scheme to discredit and purge those professionals in the CIA. But the weeks of July 6-22 are so panicky, peremptory and explosive that I think the outings had a specific trigger, and cause, and it wasn't Wilson's article. It was what happened the next day, when Blair found out what ELSE Kelly knew. This may have led them to the BJ network. They outed Plame, and then--a few days after Kelly was killed (or driven to suicide)--took a shotgun approach to the whole network, and outed EVERYBODY. Every deep cover counter-proliferation agent or contact in that network, who had any discoverable connection to the Brewster-Jennings front company, would be immediately disabled, and put in grave danger. They didn't know how far knowledge of their scheme had gone. They didn't know for sure who had foiled them. So they outed everybody. (There were several reports in the Islamic press about foiled US efforts to plant WMDs in Iraq, during that period, and I suspect that those witnesses ended up in Abu Ghraib at the bottom of the pile. There have been no followup reports.)

An action like the outing of the BJ network can only come from the highest level of government. It is not a matter of politics or the newsstream, or fuzzy word games about WMD intel. This was not fear of Wilson's calling them liars. This was fear of prosecution, and of a news story so explosive that they would not be able to control it. They had at least two major insider whistleblowers who might know--plus Plame herself, plus the entire deep cover network. If this theory is correct, the outing of Plame/BJ was panic-stricken damage control, following Rumsfeld's failure to get the nukes planted and "found," with several known whistleblowers and many hidden ones potentially in the know. And it could also be that none of them knew anything, or very little--that knowledge of their scheme was very limited--and the harpie of paranoia seized the guilty Bushites.

[Peace Patriot]

16. A note about the CIA: I believe that covert CIA agents are sworn to a lifetime

of secrecy--at least about certain things. And government operations to foment war would be one of them. Even if they think it criminal, the discredit to the US would be very great, and that is why they are sworn. And the consequences of blowing those kind of secrets, I imagine, could be pretty severe.

This is the critical difference between Plame (if she knows about such a scheme) and Kelly (if he knew). And it may be why she is alive and he is dead. She was covert CIA. She CANNOT speak of it. Kelly was not a covert agent (as far as we know). He was a scientist on loan among several agencies, a UN weapons inspector, and highly trusted and respected. But he was not sworn to secrecy. And he even had permission to speak to the press on WMD issues.

They were really on thin ground to pull him into a "safe house" and interrogate him. This is touched on in the Hutton inquiry (how badly he was treated). He was threatened with the Official Secrets Act, and they were on thin ground there as well. A covert agent has an entirely different relationship to government--more akin to military, but even more restricted in some ways. They do things that ordinary people or government officials are not supposed to do. Fix elections in foreign countries. Kill people in illicit weapons networks. Transfer secret money around the globe to serve US national interests. We had such activity out-of-control in the '80s under Reagan--in defiance of specific laws of Congress--for instance, with the Iran/Contra scandal (secret US agents selling arms to Iran, to fund the Contra death squads in Nicaragua). This kind of activity was subsequently curtailed (until now). Much of that activity was deemed to be counter-productive (especially torture and assassinations), and the CIA developed better (and more lawful) ways of gathering intelligence and influencing events. It is the unlawful activity that the Bushites desperately wanted to re-start--and have re-started. Whether Plame ever did the unlawful stuff, none of us has any way of knowing. But I presume--partly from who she is married to, and his views--that she saw her job as preventing war, not manufacturing it--and that she is the kind of lawful-minded CIA agent that the Bush Junta wanted to purge.

Someone upthread asked why, if Plame or other agents know of criminal acts or schemes by the Bushites, they wouldn't disclose it. This is why. The oath of secrecy. And if this WMD-planting theory is the truth, we obviously don't know the details, and Plame may also not know. She was working with deep cover agents in the Middle East and elsewhere. We don't know what their roles might have been. Who was just doing the detection part--say, someone in a lab who notices missing nuke equipment? Who was actively countering proliferation--had operational capability to stop illicit shipments, destroy weapons, get into hot tangles with dangerous people? One agent or contact might not know another. Who foiled the Bushite illicit weapons scheme--if that's what occurred--may be completely unknown to anyone. And, given the Bushites' shotgun approach of outing everybody, that is likely the case. But that the scheme existed, was in motion and was foiled is the dangerous knowledge that Kelly may have stumbled upon, possibly from his Iraqi contacts.

It fits with Kelly's whole story--and his character and personality--that something triggered HIS whistleblowing. He had wanted Saddam ousted. He supported the war. And he didn't start whistleblowing about the false premises of the war until three months into the invasion. What turned him around? His learning of a dark scheme to plant the weapons fits neatly into this slot, as to his motivation. Nothing else has come along to explain it. Kelly was a straight-shooter, really believed in his work of counter-proliferation, and was very good at it. Imagine his anger and dismay to find out that it was all a sham--that they were trying to plant the weapons. He had friends in Iraq. They were framing his friends--in a cowardly after-the-fact planting of evidence. It's just the sort of thing that would have ticked him off. He said, during the interrogation, "I'm not going to give away any government secrets." He did know something. And it had them very worried. And they had no real hold over him. They outed him to the press, and sent him home without protection and apparently without surveillance. His body was found on July 18, 2003, near his home, where he supposedly bled to death all night outdoors in the rain, from one minor wrist slash. Topnotch biochemist. The Hutton report is mostly a bullshit coverup, but it's worth reading between the lines.

The events leading up to the end of Kelly's life, and the Plame/B-J outings, may not be directly related. And each affair may be closer to the known and accepted narratives than we conspiracy theorists tend to believe. But--much like 9/11--neither thing has been adequately investigated or explained. And the coincidence of the Kelly/Plame dates, and themes--and the connective tissue between them (the Dodgy Dossier; Judith Miller)--are haunting.

[Demeter]

8. The 2006 Elections Fixed Rove's Wagon; No Need to Indict Him

Rove's dead meat to the GOP and BushCo. I'm surprised he's still allowed to draw breath. Must be a MAD policy agreement (Mutual Assured Destruction--ala Cold War nuclear standoff).

[Peace Patriot]

9. Rove continues to be a threat as long as Diebold and ES&S are "counting" all our votes

with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code.

[MasonJar]

17. Anhonorable man would not let someone else take the fall, but then

we all know how honorable the dick is!