Fitz's PIG in a Poke deal with Ari, no notes from proffer of Ari Fleischer

[caligirl]

were apparently taken. great thread here at FireDoglake. The informal agreement between Ari and Fitz did not preclude Fitz from charging Ari with lieing later on.


some snippets from firedoglake on the deal:http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/28/queen-for-a-day/
**
Enter: The Queen for a Day agreement. This one day immunity deal allows the witness to come in for a proffer session and give a little preview of his testimony. Agents usually take detailed notes because if the witness is found not to be telling the truth, or if he later tries to tell a different story, he can be prosecuted under the false statements crimes and the notes are needed to preserve evidence for that possible subsequent prosecution.




**
Proffer or "queen for a day" letters are written agreements between federal prosecutors and individuals under criminal investigation which permit these individuals to tell the government about their knowledge of crimes, with the supposed assurance that their words will not be used against them in any later proceedings. (The individuals can either be witnesses, subjects or targets of a federal investigation, although it is subjects and targets who provide most proffers.)

**
(… in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formal, written proffer agreement will explicitly state that no promises of either immunity or a plea bargain have been made.) Accordingly, your attorney and the prosecutor should have already informally worked out, before you ever sit down for the proffer session, a basic understanding of: 1) what you are likely to proffer; and, 2) what the contemplated post-proffer immunity or plea agreement will look like. To the extent that either part of this informal understanding is not perfectly clear to you, your attorney, and the federal prosecutor, you are heading into exceedingly dangerous territory. Why? Because, proffering will almost always harm you if post-proffer immunity/plea discussions fall apart and the government decides to indict you. For the same reason, if the prosecutor is not trustworthy or if you are not prepared to tell the complete truth, the proffer session should never take place.

**

Unlike immunity or plea agreements, proffer agreements do not prevent the government from making derivative use of your statements. In other words, although the government cannot use your actual proffer session statements against you in its case-in-chief, it can use the information that you provide to follow up leads and conduct further investigations. If those leads and further investigations capture new evidence, such evidence can be used to indict and convict you.


And the main point important today in view of Pincus testimony re: Ari Fleischer
"So what makes the immunity deal for Ari unusual are several things:

1) PatFitz unhappily bought a "pig in a poke"

2) He says he does not have any discovery material to turn over with regard to Ari's testimony. Prior statements of witnesses (even if contained in interview notes) have to be turned over to the defense as Rule 3500 material. It sounds like no material was turned over. Since Pat has never been known to cheat, that can only mean that they didn't even take notes???????

Maybe I have lost my mind or am just high from WAY too much popcorn, but I think that this means that Team Fitz gambled that Ari had something huge to tell. The fact that whatever it is that PatFitz is saying he does not have to turn over to the defense even exists, to the extent it may exist, suggests to me that the investigation is not over and that maybe, just maybe, that gamble has paid off."

[jaysunb]

1. It's paying off alright..cause

everyday, the noose gets tighter on the entire conspiracy and it's conspirators....

Ya got any extra popcorn ?? I'm fresh out. :rofl:

[Quakerfriend]

2. Well, caligirl, you seem to have great instincts. And, this is

an interesting take on it.

Do you suppose Ari has given Fitz some OTHER tangible evidence (eg, more handwritten notes/evidence, or perhaps a tape)??

[caligirl]

3. Its possible i suppose but all we have here is fitz saying he gave

Ari the informal agreement after Ari took the fifth. Here is a snippet of Fitz before Walton here:

F if someone says "we're not going to give you anything without immunity." If Fleischer says here's what we get, we don't even get to giglio. Did I know he had relevant information. When he asserted the fifth, I stopped. We understood he had given it out to SOMEONE but I didn't know which reporter. It's not a Jencks obligation. Even though I'm not obligated. I think that's wrong. " http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/25/libby-live-cathie-martin-three/#more-6802
scroll all the way down.

would Ari have a tape? don't know. But Libby's lawyers were making up every possible reason to try to get at what Ari had to say before he said it. He must have something incriminating.