File this NY Times headline under "Those Pesky Defense Attorneys":
Prosecutor Says Libby Seeks to Thwart Criminal Case
An early clue came when Libby pleaded "Not Guilty".
The article covers the newly disclosed response by Special Counsel Fitzgerald to Libby's discovery request. My thoughts here; let's get the ReddHedd, a prosecutor herself, in the mix here.
Let me add this - the Times dwells on "greymail" and the implausible request for the Presidential Daily Briefs.
However, and this is proprietary spin *not* to be attempted at home, greymail cuts both ways. It just might be that the CIA launched their criminal referral back in 2003 as a bit of a dirty trick meant to help them in their then-raging battle with the White House.
But now that we have come this far, it might be that the CIA (OK, key folks within it) would like to find a graceful way to back out of this before they have to explain to everyone their own gloomy tradecraft and inability or indifference to Ms. Plame's secret status.
Well here is one way out for the CIA - get all balky at defense requests, crater the prosecution, and blame Libby. It's all good, as they win another PR victory.
Time may tell - the request for the Daily Briefs is hard to take seriously, but some of the other stuff will (I predict) go in Libby's favor.
So there you go - the prosecution may fold and blame Libby's obstruction for their inability to try him on obstruction.
MORE: I'm watching Luci re-runs, so it is ReddHedd day here - she is quite cogent on greymail.
Surely Fitz will object to being made such a fool.
==================================================
Posted by: kim | February 18, 2006 at 06:52 PM
Everyone running for cover and still trying to look like they didn't do anything wrong{CIA}. Tenet needs to step up now and lay his cards on the table and stop this pussyfooting around.
Posted by: maryrose | February 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM
Prosecutor says Libby seeks to thwart criminal case? A defendant trying to thwart a criminal case against him? What will they think of next?
Posted by: Sue | February 18, 2006 at 07:56 PM
According to ABC news a status report on the case is due to be given to Judge Walton on Feb.24th so then we will see where we are with this case.
Posted by: maryrose | February 18, 2006 at 07:58 PM
An early clue came when Libby pleaded "Not Guilty".
now THAT was funny!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 18, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Dang....now we'll probably need a new classification of lawyers...Maybe we could call them "defense" lawyers or something crazy like that.
Who wrote that piece? Sheesh....
Posted by: Specter | February 18, 2006 at 08:03 PM
This was about as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Prosecutions involving national security issues often run into such obstacles, which is why so many of them end up getting dropped or pleaded out.
Posted by: Karl | February 18, 2006 at 08:04 PM
I 'm waiting for the pretzel twist on this. Not sure what form it takes...maybe a Fitz conspiracy to help Libby cover-up? Knew "greymail" would be a factor?
Frankly from the "don't ask, don't tell, PRETEND" © approach I can't say I'd blame them.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 18, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Many of the commenters on this blog saw this coming whent he indictment came out.
The allegations in that document coupled with Fitz's bravura performance at its unveiling made it likely that the defense would put up this kind of attack on the prosecution.
Then when the defense team was finalized, this approach became inevitable.
Clarice and the gang were right on it then and they were right.
Whe didn't the Post or the Times pick it up then?
Posted by: vnjagvet | February 18, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Thanks,vnjagvet.
This--An early clue came when Libby pleaded "Not Guilty". is one of TM's all time bests..
Say, you're Porter Goss. Say you know this was a scamarama the SP fell for. Why not use the no mas docs approach and get the thing pitched rather than subjecting the agency to more grief and keeping this nonsense going? Just a thought from someone who plays chess with ALL the pieces,not just the pawns and knights game Fitz prefers.
Posted by: clarice | February 18, 2006 at 10:40 PM
TM--you were joking about "cogent" weren't you? Or does it mean preposterously paranoid in JOMish?
Posted by: clarice | February 18, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Reddhead was quite cogent. Perhaps too much so. To paraphrase Dickerson, she walked the reader right up to the line of "materiality" without taking the extra step of explaining just why "materiality" matters. That must have taken some carefully crafted writing.
In short, she does note that a "lie is a lie". She does not, however, discuss the difference between "lies" and the "lies that carry criminal sanctions".
Materiality: a lie is not a lie when a spy is not a spy.
Posted by: Chants | February 19, 2006 at 06:34 AM
What? Mount a defense? The chutzpah of that little thwart.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | February 19, 2006 at 11:15 AM
OK, C, the answer is that one hopes Porter is playing with a full board and doesn't want this laid to rest.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | February 19, 2006 at 11:19 AM
It's his broom.
================
Posted by: kim | February 19, 2006 at 11:20 AM
I think Goss is on the case. He looked really upset at the hearings and someone will be held accountable in the NYT NSA leaks.
Posted by: maryrose | February 19, 2006 at 01:49 PM
If Fitz won't investigate Joe and Val then his most graceful move now is to drop charges against Libby and pursue bad guys in Chicago, while the DoJ takes over and helps Goss clean house.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 20, 2006 at 07:23 AM
I hope he uses the bristle end and the stick end.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | February 20, 2006 at 07:27 AM
Too corny for Monday morny, huh?
========================================
Posted by: kim | February 20, 2006 at 07:29 AM