Some potentially very bad news about Libby

[kstewart33]

My husband told me over lunch today about a report on NPR today about the Libby defense. He said that legal analysts believe that Libby’s lawyers will use this defense: Libby was so busy with very burdensome responsibilities (saving the world from terrorism, etc.) that he could not remember the relevant conversations about Plame. To show this, Libby’s lawyers will petition the White House for classified documents to show just how important his work was. Of course, the White House will refuse to provide them, and Libby’s lawyers will then petition the court to drop the case because they cannot provide an adequate defense for Libby. If the judge concurs, the case will be dropped.

Now what’s disturbing is that this defense has been tried before and it worked. Remember Bunny Greenhouse, the Pentagon contract officer who sued the government for bad treatment after she whistle blew about Pentagon contracts? She needed some documents to make her case, the government would not provide them, and the case was dropped by the judge, leaving Bunny out in the cold.

Guess who the judge was? The same one presiding over the Libby case.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. Set up city.

Not a surprise, just a (potential) disappointment. One among many.

[fooj]

2. Yes. Very troubling. Unfortunately, Bunny didn't have Fitz!

I can't see it happening again. These slimebags can't keep getting away with this bullshit. they just can't.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x315885

peace.

[Innocent Smith]

4. Judge > Fitz

Like in the previous mentioned case - it all depends upon the judge. Fitz would be powerless. But he could take it up to higher court - all the way to the Supreme Court if neccessary.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Probably why Fitz put so much into that letter, letting them know that

he had the goods to bring many more charges shown in your thread reference - he's pushing for a plea deal.

And there is the court of public opinin to contend with. Most people have heard of this case, and can see similarities to Nixon coverups - especially with the wiretapping now.

[fooj]

9. We can only hope...

Peace.

[napi21]

3. There's a big difference between saying "I don't recall" and answering the

the presecutors question falsely! Since we don't have a transcript of his testimony, we can't know for sure, but I doubt Fitz would have charged Libby with lying if all he said was "I don't recall!"

Libby's lawyers have to do the best job they can for thier client. This sounds like "throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks!"

[Zensea]

5. The Greenhouse case is the exact opposite so the thesis doesn't work

There's a big difference between not having documents to prove a case and not having documents that might prove innocence.

[calmblueocean]

14. It's more than that. Libby's documents can't prove his innocence.

There's nothing in the documents Libby wants that could prove Libby innocent. Libby's defense is "Look at how busy I was! A busy, busy bee like me can't be expected to remember something as trivial as whether I leaked an undercover CIA operative's name to the press." The documents are just window dressing to make that case, which he could make many other ways, as well.

[Historic NY]

6. I don't see the Bunny situation happening here,

Bunny was a career government employee not a political policy maker. What was Libby a political hack in the VP's office. This is no different than Nixon and all the presidents men. Libby just got caught up in it so far because of his blind political loyality he couldn't remember which lies were which lies.

[Redbear]

7. This would likely be different as it is a criminal matter

See U.S. v. Nixon.

It is also likely that the judge will say its irrelevant. It is a given that Libby was very busy and he was animportant governemnt official.

[Katherine Brengle]

10. agreed>

I think that the WH could be overruled in this situation, should they refuse, which of course they always do...

[Sydnie]

11. Isn't this the same judge as Sibel too?

I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

[spanone]

13. Yes, it is. They mentioned that very fact on NPR this morning.

[Cleita]

12. What if the prosecution demands that Bush and Cheney

be subpeoned to explain why they won't release the documents and can they prove that there would be a security risk?

[Hamlette]

15. the judge would just take judicial notice of how busy he was

the records would not be necessary. This is a WAY different case from Bunny's in terms of the types of documents requested. Bunny was requesting classified documents and the documents were necessary to prove her case AGAINST the government.

Here the government is bringing the action. And the documents are not classified. And if they were classified, they do not go to the heart of the matter.

My guess is the judge would say "yeah, you were busy, we'll give you that, you don't need no stinking documents to prove that the Vice President's chief of staff in an administration bent on taking over the world was busy. Hell, I'm busy but if I'd evern committed treason by outing a secret agent, I'd remember. I will instruct the jury that you were a very busy man. Then they will decide if you were so busy you forgot your duty to our country." Or words to that effect ;)

[Virginian]

16. Libby is a security risk and can't be trusted with classified material.

The White House would have to declassify them for him to see his own papers.

[emulatorloo]

17. **Some potentially very bad news *******FOR****** Libby:

Fitzgerald has his number -- as well as that of Karl and Cheney

Please go read DU thread here:

BR_Parkway - Fitz's letter to Libby lawyer tosses up another gem!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x315885

[lapfog_1]

18. That might be a fine little defense strategy...

except it will NOT explain what is likely to be the main charge... it's not that Libby told one thing to a grand jury and that others told different stories (i.e. Libby's memory failed). But rather that Libby HIMSELF told the grand jury two different stories covering the same set of facts. That's perjury... and probable intent to cover up a crime. And no judge likes to be told that the defendant "didn't focus on his grand jury testimony because he was too busy with other things". They tend to take a dim view of that sort of thing.