Powered by TypePad

« Martin And Harlow - Timing Is Everything | Main | The first 3 witnesses in the Libby trial »

January 26, 2007

Comments

cboldt

-- if it appears that there was some trick to keep out of the defense hands something that Giglio requires if committed to writing --

That's one way to view Libby's recent filing. But clearly, from the side bar discussion and following through to the pleading, there is a dispute that boils down to applying the legal principle of Giglio to the fact pattern represented by this leak investigation, this witness's refusal to testify unless immunized, and this trial.

cboldt

-- I don't think Wells would make such a serious claim without evidence --


Why not? He's free to speculate to his client's advantage, and to demand all the discovery, evidence, inclusion and preclusion that the law permits. His obligation is to slant the scales of justice in his client's favor -- that's the definition of advocacy in an adversarial system, where your opponent is doing the same.


I still see the Fleisher immunity as a sticky wicket. The jury will speculate as to the nature of the deal, and Libby would do well to get the jury thinking the deal was a perjury trap. First he has to preclude presentation of the fact pattern that Fitz has proffered.

clarice

Do you have the EW notes on this discussion handy or know where it was. I can't find it and Apuzzo's account is too general-I recall, besides the Giglio case, Wells might have raised another case but I can't remember which?

I get the impression Wells is suggesting that even without a written proffer, Fleischer's counsel indicated he had useful information about Libby to which he'd testify.

cboldt

-- if it appears that there was some trick to keep out of the defense hands something that Giglio requires if committed to writing --

This is basic knowledge for the lawyer-readers, but for the rest of the readers, the principle of Giglio does not require the prosecution/witness deal be reduced to writing. My parenthetical assumption above, that the deal had been reduced to writing, represents my belief that Fitz has a practice of memorializing details into written form -- and wasn't an assertion that "written or not" has bearing on a Giglio analysis. For Giglio, a deal is a deal.

cboldt

-- Do you have the EW notes on this discussion handy --


Yes. Libby Liveblog: Cathie Martin, Three

-- Wells might have raised another case --


Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

cboldt

-- Wells is suggesting ... Fleischer's counsel indicated he had useful information about Libby to which he'd testify. --


Right. That's what I meant when I said, "Libby would do well to get the jury thinking the [Fleischer immunity] deal was [part of] a perjury trap. [set just for Libby]"


Team Libby wants to plant that impression (at the minimum, as a possibility) in the mind of the jurors, regardless of the truth of the matter.

clarice

Here are the relevant EW notes:
"

We have requested from the govt under giglio of any proffers with the govt. That we think would be producable under giglio. It has been represented to us that there were no such communications, blind immunity, without any knowledge of what he would say of Mr. Libby.

Z I don't know the reference to blind immunity. We didn't have any proffer, there were no factual proffers thta would qualify. There were no representations.

Walton He didn't say before hand "if you give me immunity this is what I'll say."

J If Flesicher said through his lawyer, I detected some hesitation.

Walton Is that accurate that you didn't know?

Z we got no specifics from his attorney.

Walton Just a general statement that he could provide

Z there was no reference to Mr Libby.

Fitzgerald The notion that we're hiding the ball. There wasn't some representation of what he would say. There wasn't a factual proffer.

Walton do you accept counsel's representations that if his lawyer represented that he could say something about Mr. Libby about this case and he said that before he got immunity, would that qualify in giglio.

Fit What I object to is that we're playing fast and loose to something. They refused to give us a proffer. It wasn't as if someone said "here's what we'll give you" It wasn't something that we had laid out before us. For them to raise the issues as if we're hiding something. Proffers are usually turned over as Jencks.

Walton Mr Fleischer never provided a factual scenario of what he would say

F We were told he had relevant information. Frankly I didn't want to give him immunity, I was buying a pig in a poke. I did not know what we were going to get other than I knew it was going to be relevant to the case. They're asking for things they're not entitled to. It's not fair.

Wells We have a very different view of the law.

Walton–all he can tell you is that Fleischer had info on this case.

Wells I'm not sure that's what they're saying. Let me explain how govt and defense bar deal with these issues. Blind immunity is commonly referrred to as a situation where govt says, can you help me. Once I go beyond "I can help you." the jury has a right to know, that's negotiated testimony. If the lawyer made through oral representations, we have a right to let the jury know that this was bargained-for testimony. If they said it'll help you case…

Walton I assume Fitz didn't stand before me and make a misrepresentation. He knew Fleischer had info about the case.

Wells if the only statement is, he was on the airplane. If the defense lawyer, eventually we'll get to it maybe after the case, if defense lawyer gave some way it would be helpful. If it's truly blind immnunity, there's nothing to say. There was some kind of it'll help you.

Walton maybe lawyers have a reason to be suspect. That's what I quit practiing because I got tired of people saying I had done things that are not true.

Wells Mr Fitz and I have been at this game for a long time.

Wells we have a disagreement about the law.

Fitz I have been at the game long enough to know defense attorneys will say some things so they can learn things they're not entitled to learn.

Walton if Ari said through his lawyer that he had info and it'd be helpful would you be obligaed to disclose that.

Fitz No.

Walton if he said he had something that it'd be helpful.

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.

Walton if the defense believes given what govt based on what he indicated under the second. He says it doesn't. If defense believes, they can file appropriate motion, I will rule on it. "


As I understand it if they granted Fleischer immunity without any idea of what he'd testify to there is no further inquiry, but Wells believes if it went at all beyind that even thru just winks and nods between the prosecutor and Williams & Connolly, he does have the right to do further..

Well, it's late and so far I can't find much..maybe I'll find something tomorrow or the defense will file something that helps.

cboldt

-- maybe I'll find something tomorrow or the defense will file something that helps --

The defense filed two papers late Friday. I had them up before 6:30 Saturday morning.

MJW

Not too important, and I could be misremembering, but regarding the discussion of how Libby's team learned of Grossman's discussion with Armitage prior to Grossman grand jury testimony, I believe Grossman testified at trial that he told the grand jury about it. If so, it was part of the Jencks material. I believe that was also confirmed by a Libby filing prior to trial.

MJW

Can Fitzgerald disclose to Walton ex parte the exact circumstances of the deal with Fleischer, so Walton can decide whether Giglio applies?

MJW

Or why wouldn't Walton just hold a hearing where Fitzgerald can explain the circumstances, both sides can argue, and Walton can rule? Why must the information be kept from the defense? If it's not admissible, they can't reveal it to the jury.

clarice

Thanks for the tip on the filing cboldt--(I'd have saved myself a lot of work if I'd known about the filing earlier). The defense uses Fitz' words to establish the govt knew that Fleischer had some relevant info before they granted him immunity and argue:
"Brady v. Maryland makes clear that the government must disclose all "evidence favorable to the accused." 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the Court faced the question whether Brady required the government to disclose an agreement with a witness under which the government granted the witness immunity in exchange for the witness's testimony. The Court held that Brady required such disclosure because "evidence of any understanding would be relevant to [the witness's] credibility," and is therefore evidence "the jury is entitled to know." Giglio, 405 U.S. at l 54-55 (emphasis added). As one court has explained in a related context, "any information that reveals the nature of the negotiation process that led to the leniency agreement is relevant to the witness's motives to testify and must be disclosed under Giglio." United States v. Sudikoff 36 F.Supp.2d 1196 (C.D. Calif. 1999).

Giglio does not, contrary to the government's suggestion, excuse the government from disclosing evidence relating to an immunity deal simply because the witness's expected testimony has not been memorialized in the form of a fact-specific, written proffer. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, the "point" of Giglio is that an immunity agreement "may give a person a


- 4 -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 255 Filed 01/27/2007 Page 5 of 7

motive that the jury must be permitted to evaluate." In re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887, 894 & n.6; see also Brown v. Wainwright, 785 F.2d 1457, 1465 (11th Cir. 1986) ("The constitutional concerns address the realities of what might induce a witness to testify falsely, and the jury is entitled to consider those realities in assessing credibility."). The mere fact that an immunity agreement is not accompanied by a written proffer cannot deprive evidence of that agreement of its impeachment value or exculpatory nature. To the contrary, the basic, unassailable principles of Brady and Giglio make clear that any statements made by a witness or his counsel to the effect that the witness would, in return for immunity, provide testimony relevant to the government's prosecution are discoverable by the defense.

Likewise, the fact that the bargain between the government and the witness may have been tacit rather than express is immaterial. See, e.g., United States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 690 (9th Cir. 1986) ("While it is clear that an explicit agreement would have to be disclosed because of its effect on [the witness's] credibility, it is equally clear that facts which imply an agreement would also bear on [the witness's] credibility and would have to be disclosed"). And it also does not matter whether the relevant communications are made by the witness himself or by counsel on the witness's behalf. See Campbell v. Reed, 594 F.2d 4, 6 (4th Cir. 1979) (finding a Brady/Giglio violation where the government failed to disclose an immunity agreement communicated by the government to the witness's attorney but not the witness).

Instead, the only question that must be asked under Brady and Giglio is whether the communications in question reveal that the testimony being provided is the result of negotiations between the witness and the government. For the reasons described above, it appears that that is


- 5 -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 255 Filed 01/27/2007 Page 6 of 7

exactly what occurred in Mr. Fleischer's case. Accordingly, the information and evidence Mr. Libby seeks are plainly discoverable.

Should the Court harbor any doubt on this point, Mr. Libby submits that the proper course is for the Court to review the materials in camera review before making any determination, and (depending on the Court's determination) to preserve the material under seal for appellate review. See, e.g., United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1252 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Not infrequently, what constitutes Brady material is fairly debatable. In such instances, the prosecutor should mark the material as a court exhibit and submit it to the court for in camera inspection."); United States v. Murgas, (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (concluding that, where the government's obligation's under Brady is unclear, "the prudent course" is for the government to either turn the relevant information over to the defense, or if there exists a doubt, to the court for in camera inspection). "

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/01/libby-memorandum-to-discover-fleishers.html

clarice

MJW we were cross posting--it appears Libby is asking for just what you proposed.

clarice

Libby also filed a motion in limine to preclude Fleischer from testifying about the newspaper article (indicating criminal penalties for leaks) as prejudicial..In the bench conference notes it appears that the Judge seemed inclined to agree that the article was prejudicial in that it might suggest to jurors some criminal activity other than that which had been charged..Defense says they will not go into Fleischer's motive.

Interestingly, the paper indicates that Fleischer as an immunized witness is unique in this case which indicates that Apuzzo's suggestion that Armitage was also granted immunity is in error.

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/01/libby-motion-in-limine-to-preclude.html

willem

The delay that gave rise to OVP's disgust is telling. Of it's many duties CIA must also be an employer. Employers have considerable responsibility and contingent liability regarding the treatment of their employees.

So what to do when nepotism rears its ugly head? What to do when a former operative's career and earning capacity is damaged by the employer's negligence. Twice. Then, near retirement, the wronged employee, a woman, sends her husband on a company junket. The husband returns and begins to "rooster" about town crowing details of his conquest of the Truth. But it's not true. And how does he dare crow such things which should be confidential? Where's the NDA? The wronged spouse didn't get one signed? What to do now? Suspend? Fire? Ignore? What about the rest of the dirty laundry? How much louder can this get. It's politicized. The husband is connected. He won't shut up. The media is involved. What? The OVP is calling?

What an administrative nightmare. I can just imagine the indecision and paralysis: How much did they say they'd take for severance? How much to settle? How much more to keep it out of court and out of the media? What's the union's position?

Opportunism is an interesting trait. Who knows what happened relative to the employer/employee dynamic. I can only speculate that the probability of it being benign in this matter is rather low.

There are many instances where employees reach the end of their career and get shafted before it's over.

Easy to overlook that door swings both ways. And if the Fedora rumblings of Wilson's French Connections are true, there's no telling how complicated the public/private conflicts became for Valerie Plame's employer.

As trite as much of this circus appears to be, I don't think Shakespeare could have interwoven so many odd subplots into the story that continues to unfold.

Hard to tell if we're watching an episode of Faulty Towers or a sequel to Godfather III.

cboldt

-- which indicates that Apuzzo's suggestion that Armitage was also granted immunity is in error. --


Not necesssarily. Armitage is not a government witness in this case.

clarice

tHANK YOU, CBOLDT..EXCELLENT POINT.
NITERS.

Sara (Squiggler)

The prosecution says it isn't about Libby and then he talks leak. Doesn't he?

Z there was no reference to Mr Libby.

F ... We understood he had given it out to SOMEONE but I didn't know which reporter.

What is the "it?" Who is the reporter someone Ari gave it out to?

Daddy

Sara,
I'm hoping that what Ari "gave" to a reporter was a memo, and that the guy he "gave" it to was Gregory, because I want to see Gregory say that that's why he said on that TV show that nobody "Told" him anything. Suppose we'll find out soon enough. Thanks for the hard work everyone. Whether Libby gets convicted or not, what a travesty if the history of this fiasco was simply left to the storytelling of the MSM.

Patton

JOHN KERRY PUTS FOOT IN MOUTH AGAIN:
CALLS HIS COUNTRY AN 'INTERNATIONAL PARIAH'

Think the Lamestream media will attempt to bury this story?

DAVOS: Massachusetts Senator John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the United States on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become “a sort of international pariah.”

MJW

I think Walton will require Fitz to reveal the circumstances under which he granted Fleischer immunity, and it will turn out to be more than a blind grant. Fitz's position is self-contradictory: There's nothing there, and I refuse to say what it is.

Cboldt's rational for not requiring disclosure, in my opinion, misses the point of Giglio:

In spite of a clever attempt to equate immunity in the leak investigation with immunity on a Libby false statements investigation, the two items are not the same thing.
But if Fitz had agreed not to prosecute Fleischer for shoplifting if he testified against Libby, Giglio would still apply, since Fleisher would have an obvious motive to agree to testify in a manner that pleased the government.

MJW

rationale, that is.

MJW

Sara, my interpretation of Fitz's "We understood he had given it out to SOMEONE but I didn't know which reporter" is that he's saying he understood Fleisher had given information on Plame to someone, but Fitz didn't know it was Gregory. My cynical view is Fitz was trying to change the subject from what Fleischer indicated he'd testify to, to why Fleischer sought immunity.

cboldt

-- Cboldt's rational for not requiring disclosure, in my opinion, misses the point of Giglio ... if Fitz had agreed not to prosecute Fleischer for shoplifting if he testified against Libby --

My rationale is partly based on the crime (investigating and giving immunity for a leak is not the same as investigating and giving immunity for a lie), but regardless of that, as one reads on, it quickly becomes apparent, by example, that my rationale also involves the personal subject(s) involved in the witnesses testimony. "For all Fitzgerald knew, Fleisher would testify that he read the INR and blabbed as a lone wolf, not hearing of Mrs. Wilson from either Libby or Rove."

-- Fitz's position is self-contradictory: There's nothing there, and I refuse to say what it is. --

Any position can be made self-contradictory, when the critic takes license to recast his opposition's position via paraphrase, literalism, strawman, or other rhetorical trickery. Lord knows it happens to me, here, often enough. See above for one example, where my stated rationale is truncated, and the isolated portion is then criticized as "missing the point." See also here and here for additional recent examples.

Back to Fitzgerald. Not that I'm right, but I take Fitz's position regarding his duty to apprise the defense of details of the immunity deal (phrased somewhat as speculation) as: "We didn't know what Fleisher was going to testify to, except he sought and we gave immunity for his leaking to a reporter or reporters. [i.e., he says there is "something" there] However, the nature of the the deal is such that it does not trigger the application of Giglio or Brady, therefore we have no duty to disclose it to the defense or the jury."

This position is literally a refusal, but it's a refusal that admits contents and witness's rationale for "seeking a deal" with an explanation as to why this information could be held back until this point in the trial. Fitz's position isn't fairly the logical conundrum presented by "I have nothing and refuse to tell you what it [the nothing] is." Further, he provides justification, not a refusal without basis. I think a more accurate shorthand for Fitz is "The deal didn't involve providing testimony about Libby, therefore I have no duty to give 'deal information' to the defense."

Looking to the ultimate resolution of the issue(s), the fact pattern presented by the Fleischer immunity deal is both in harmony and at odds with the point of Giglio and Brady. Those cases roughly stand for the proposition all evidence in the prosecution's possession, that is in the defendant's favor, must be made available to the defense. But in this case, the proffered evidence (the nature of the deal, in sum) seems to cut against the defense. The defense would rather have had the details in advance, so it had more time to think about and argue why the evidence should be excluded from the trial, that it is prejudicial to include it. Giglio and Brady militate for inclusion, Libby wants [certain parts of] the evidence excluded.

The contents of Fitz's Response (and Libby's surrebuttal) will be interesting, but not as interesting as Walton's ruling on the point. Given his past practice, I think Walton will insist on seeing the deal and related correspondence before he renders a ruling. My gut is telling me that Fitz's attitude on this is "Please don't throw me into that briar patch."

lurker

Hayek "Road to Serfdom" in cartoons.

At first I thought the symptoms described in these cartons were familiar based on the current events.

Then I realized it was also talking about something else.

Interesting!

topsecretk9

--Then it seems it was him that brought in his wife's home computer (???)--

2 known witness tampering and this too. Really special.

-- azaghal --
thanks

and what's up with JimE. Why is he sooooo obsessed with Clarice. It's a little scary. I'd be careful Clrarice, be safe.

Sue

But in this case, the proffered evidence (the nature of the deal, in sum) seems to cut against the defense.

Because of the newspaper article? Is that what defense want kept out? I think I got lost in your explanation. I understand you agree with Fitz, it doesn't fall under either, but your last sentence threw me. Do you think Fitz thinks the judge will allow it?

boris

Lord knows it happens to me, here, often enough.

Oh cboldt everybody here loves you, you just take blog debate too personally. You're kinda like Chloe on 24.

Here's a plausibility quiz for you ... (no fair cheating) ...

I show you 4 playing cards, the 4 aces. I put them face down on the table and mix (shuffle) them together then slide one in your direction (you do not pick it up).

I pick up the other 3 and hold them like a poker hand and ask you to guess which ace is in front of you. You say "Ace of Hearts".

I then lay down the Ace of Spades and the Ace of Clubs face up. We each now have one card but you have no way of knowing which is the Ace of Hearts and which is the Ace of Diamonds. But you can answer the following question ...

What are the odds your card is actually the ace of diamonds?

boris

a more accurate shorthand for Fitz is "The deal didn't involve providing testimony about Libby, therefore I have no duty to give 'deal information' to the defense."

If the motive for letting Fleischer off on the "intent" of the investigation (leaking Plame) was to get evidence of perjury and obstruction for others then that distinction is basically unfair. Fleischer still has motive to make something up or slant his recollections.

sad

and what's up with JimE. Why is he sooooo obsessed with Clarice. It's a little scary.

Tops
Clarice and you and Sue and all of the other women who have pulled so much together regarding the truth of this case are way too intimidating for some guys to handle. Clarice takes so much flack because she is a force outside of this blog. The rest of you have anonimity and could be guys using a girl name. The intimidated ones know for sure Clarice is female. JimE is not the first guy to go ballistic about Clarice. Probably won't be the last.

PeterUK

Interesting to note thatJimE uses the same lower case "c" for Clarice as Jeff

kate

I thought the panel discussion on Fox News Sunday on Libby was pretty even handed. Brit Hume seems to believe that both sides scored some points.

Bill Kristol pointed out that the prosecution did not reveal anything that was not already known.

This is how I read it but was totally perplexed after seeing CNN's take on the trial.

OT: I just fired off a note to AP on this headline:
Mortars attack girl's school, 5 dead.

Can you imagine what this headline would look like if it were American forces who hit the school.

I am increasingly discouraged by this and feel that our news outlets are aligned with the enemy.

Patton

For Fitz telling us how important national security is wrapped into the case in his presser, why does he keep letting off those that are the actual leakers??

Armitage, now Fliescher. What's next, is he going to cut a deal with Berger?

Cecil Turner

What are the odds your card is actually the ace of diamonds?

Three out of four (.75 of being an off ace, just like it was the first time) . . . assuming the dealer cares enough to play the game.

Interesting to note thatJimE uses the same lower case "c" . . .

Is that a "tell"? Is this a poker quiz?

But if Fitz had agreed not to prosecute Fleischer for shoplifting if he testified against Libby, Giglio would still apply . . .

That seems to me to be the most logical reading of Giglio, whether the proffer mentions Libby or not. The deal, and the effect on the witness's credibility, would seem to be the issue . . . and that's independent of what the promised testimony will be. Still, seems to me Fitz has a point that it'd be Jencks vice Brady material (if the only benefit to the Defense is in impeaching the witness).

boris

why does he keep letting off those that are the actual leakers??

Perhaps Fizt mistook Libby's fear of being the scapegoat as muddying the waters to cover up a conspiracy.

Neo

His wife sent him and it's unethical.

This reveals the part of the story that Wilson can't defend.

By revealing that he, a former State Department official, had engaged in an operation, not matter how small, for the CIA, he had/has put into danger all present and future State Department personal, even those covered by dipomatic immunity.

Every Interior Minister in a 3rd World nation has always believed that dipomats are really spies, but they could never show proof positive that it was true. Joe Wilson has shown, by his actions with the NYT Op-Ed piece, that this is true, at least for some of them.

The men and women of the diplomatic corp say thanks for nothing.

Other Tom

Forgive me for being in the Slow Reading Group, but I'm confused. Why would the question of a proffer ever arise? Ari gets subpoenaed; his lawyer tells Fitz "my client's gonna take the fifth"; and a blind grant follows as the night the day. Right?

I confess that I have a little trouble following the blogscripts of the sidebar conferences re Giglio. Help...

azaghal

Re the immunity deal, I think Fitz' words are significant. He keeps repeating: "no factual proffer." <> are his exact words. That doesn't mean there was no proffer, and it doesn't mean there were no negotiations. He's trying to stake out a position that, unless specific facts were proffered, he has no obligations under Giglio. I don't believe that's correct, but I'm open to correction. :-)

Rick, re 793, I don't think there was any evidence of that, either, because of the stringent intent requirements--but I am aware that certain prosecutors have been trying to push that envelope in certain cases. The intent to advantage a foreign power was clearly never a possibility with regard to Libby--or Armitage and Novak, for that matter. It was undoubtedly used as a smokescreen to keep the investigation going till they thought their perjury traps had caught someone. Having an SC not bound by DOJ guidelines and communicating by ESP with his soul buddy who has persuaded the AG to recuse is a scary situation for anyone the SC is pursuing. In fact, it's a constitutional outrage and I'm unwilling to cut anyone any slack who is taking advantage of the situation.

Wolf Blitzer had an exclusive interview with Cheney. It was utterly pathetic.

Ranger

Forgive me for being in the Slow Reading Group, but I'm confused. Why would the question of a proffer ever arise? Ari gets subpoenaed; his lawyer tells Fitz "my client's gonna take the fifth"; and a blind grant follows as the night the day. Right?

Posted by: Other Tom | January 28, 2007 at 08:05 AM

Actually, no. Fitz specificly stated to the judge that he didn't want to give him immunity, but decided to anyway. That implies a decision making process at some point where Fitz's mind was changed. It is fair for the defense to know what brought about that change of mind on the prosecutors part, even if it wasn't in writing and no more than a couple of conversations because it may have indicated to Ari which direction his testemony needed to go in to satisfy the prosecutor on immunity.

Other Tom

Ranger: But if he doesn't give him immunity, he gets no testimony at all. So his decision-making process would have been nothing more than, "I'm not targeting this guy, and I want to hear what he knows, so I grant him immunity." At least that's the way I see it.

Araghal: Missed the Blitzer-Cheney interview. Can you summarize?

Ranger

Ranger: But if he doesn't give him immunity, he gets no testimony at all. So his decision-making process would have been nothing more than, "I'm not targeting this guy, and I want to hear what he knows, so I grant him immunity." At least that's the way I see it.

Posted by: Other Tom | January 28, 2007 at 08:23 AM

Which raises the interesting question of why Fitz, who was supposed to be looking for illegal leakers decided not to target a guy who pleads the 5th rather than testify. To me, as an investigator, if I get a witness who refuses to talk, my first inclination is not: 'well, I never suspected this guy, so he must be afraid on something besides what I am investigation, so I'll give him immunity.'

My first inclination is: 'hmmm... something to hide. That means I need to dig deeper about this guy and who else might know what he did.'

Which means that Fitz had abandoned looking for leakers at the outset of his investigation.

boris

"I'm not targeting this guy, and I want to hear what he knows, so I grant him immunity."

The dynamic changes if Fitz has Ari dead to rights on leaking. If Fitz is more intereted in catching Libby and Cheney covering up their conspiracy to take revenge on noble whistleblowers then of course he's not actually interested in Ari's leaks. He can leverage Ari's concern that he is vulnurable to a leak charge to pry open the "conspiracy".

Other Tom

If one had a dirty mind, one might guess that Ari was not high enough in the food chain for Fitz, and in any case he was no longer in the White House and thus not a high-value target.

boris

Or Fitz used the illusion of prosecuting leaks, which he knew was untenable, to root out the injustice and abuse of power via exposing a conspiracy cover up, a much more productive endeavor historically.

clarice

Azaghal:"Re the immunity deal, I think Fitz' words are significant. He keeps repeating: "no factual proffer." <> are his exact words. That doesn't mean there was no proffer, and it doesn't mean there were no negotiations. He's trying to stake out a position that, unless specific facts were proffered, he has no obligations under Giglio"

Yes, I think Fitz is pushing the envelope again.
In any event I think J Walton will demand to see the evidence(including asking questions of the dealmakers if there is no paper trail) in his chambers before deciding the issue. And since my belief that this was always a political witch hunt, there was some indication from Fleischer's counsel that their client had something to offer on someone in the WH.
Of course his aide, Adam Levine, if the author of 1X2x6 may have let the prosecutor believe Ari did as well.

In any event, W & C and Fitz are all experienced in this game (as J Walton well knows) and the evidence trail on the deal will be subtle and oral since both knew a written proffer would end up before the jury to discredit Ari's testimony.

boris

[Ari's] aide, Adam Levine, if the author of 1X2x6

That would seem to signal "we can trade conspiracy testimony for immunity on the leak".

Fitz's attitude on this is "Please don't throw me into that briar patch."

Don't think exposing the deal enhances credibility wrt "conspiracy". Perhaps that's because there doesn't seem to have been one. It's like UFOs, at some point the more people who claim to be seeing them adds to the suspicion that "seeing UFOs" is the real phenomenon not the UFOs themselves.

boris

Maybe Fitz should investigate the conspiracy to cover up UFOs.

Gary Maxwell

I have always wondered why one or was it two names were redacted in the court documents that we saw oh so many months ago. Is it possible that part of the "agreements' with Ari and Armitage would be that their names would be left out ( sort of like " you cant go blithely through this referring to us as unindicted co-conspirators, not make that you cant refer to us in any manner whatsoever"? It has always been an illogical mystery of this case, to me anyway. Maybe we have the answer.

clarice

Yes, Boris, Levine could have been simply enhancing the deal by making Ari's testimony seem more valuable to the prosecutor--a third-party proffer as it were.
I'm going to check to see when Levine quit.

Gary Maxwell

Replace "not" in the parentheses with "NO".

Sheesh my fingers run without a direct connection to the brain sometimes.

clarice

Adam Levine:
"

LEVINE WAS ONE OF FEW PRESS AIDES TO SPEAK TO REPORTERS DURING AFRICA TRIP: “Levine was one of the few press officials at the White House to answer reporters’ calls [during the Africa trip].” [CNN, 2/10/04]

LEVINE AMONG THE FIRST WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY: Levine testified on February 6, 2004. “Levine’s testimony was described as ‘brief’ and non-combative, and followed several interviews with FBI agents. The source said there were many questions about which reporters [Levine] and other senior officials talked to, suggesting investigators are trying to get as much information as possible from press officials, knowing the reporters are unlikely to talk.” [Newsday 2/24/04; CNN, 2/10/04]

LEVINE SAID TO TESTIFY ABOUT ‘WHITE HOUSE PROCEDURES’: “Dan French, former U.S. attorney for New York’s Northern District, and Don Kinsella, the district’s longtime criminal bureau chief, are representing a former White House press aide, Adam Levine ‘The President of the United States has asked his staff to cooperate, and even though Levine’s no longer on the staff he’s adhering to the President’s request,’ French said. ‘He has been called to testify before the federal grand jury concerning his knowledge of White House procedures, in particular phone calls with reporters. He was called to testify and we represented him in those proceedings.’” [The Times Union (Albany, NY) 2/12/04]

LEVINE LEFT ADMINISTRATION IN DECEMBER ‘03, BUT RELATIONSHIP CONTINUED: New York Times: “Levine left the Bush administration in December after working as the principal liaison between the White House and television networks.” Later, the Washington Post describes Levine as “a former White House aide who portrayed Russert in mock sessions with administration officials,” referring to White House prep for President Bush in advance of his Meet the Press appearance in early February ‘04. [NYT, 2/10/04; Washington Post, 2/5/04]

LAST-MINUTE TESTIMONY FROM LEVINE: The Washington Post reported that prosecutors conducted “last-minute interviews with Adam Levine, a member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak, about his conversations with Rove.” [Washington Post, 10/27/05]"

http://thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal#levine


When was Fleischer granted immunity?

Sue

Totally off topic, but doesn't it make you wonder anew what Sandy Burglar stole from the archives seeing all of these exhibits in the Libby trial? Something damning to Clinton with regards to OBL had to be removed.

Anyway, sorry to be off topic, just struck me, looking at government exhibits that every note taken in the WH is kept.

clarice

From cboldt's timeline, it appears that the Fleischer immunity deal was sought around Sept 29 or 30 (a day or so after a Wa Po article specifying criminal penalties that MIGHT apply to any leaker of classified info about a NOC) and just before Armitage's Oct 3 meeting with the FBI.

When was the 1x2x6 article published.

kate

9/27/2003

Shortcut to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11208-2003Sep27?language=printer

Neo

Fitz's attitude on this is "Please don't throw me into that briar patch."

Fitz has to have been feeling like he got ahold of a real tarbay when he granted this 2 immunity deals, as they seem to have lead nowhere.

" 'Howdy, Brer Rabbit," sez Brer Fox, sezee. 'You look sorter stuck up dis mawin',' sezee, en den he rolled on de groun', en laughed en laughed twel he couldn't laugh no mo'.

Florence Schmieg

I guess I would want immunity if I was Ari Fleischer too. When was the Martha Stewart stuff going on? Prosecutors are a scary bunch.

clarice

According to the Wa Po story..the source of 1x2x6 made his statement on Sept 27--a day before the story was written. According to the prosecutor as soon as Fleischer saw that he tried to cut an immunity deal.

Logical, that he didn't know what his aide was saying but when he saw it in print, he decided to cut a deal? Or did Levine say this to the Wa Po to enhance the likelihood that Fleischer would be granted one?

cboldt

-- From cboldt's timeline, it appears that the Fleischer immunity deal was sought around Sept 29 or 30 --


No it doesn't.

clarice

How do you read this?
May 19, 2003 - Fleischer announces resignation
After resignation announcement, before resignation is effective, Fleisher "learns then leaks"
July 15, 2003 - Fleisher resignation effective
September 28, 2003 - Washington Post Sunday Page A01 article, "Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry," by Mike Allen and Dana Priest, precipitates Fleischer contact with counsel (that day or the next day)

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/

cboldt

He lawyered-up in late September. You said he sought immunity then. There was at least one step in between lawyering up and seeking and immunity deal. His first action was to refuse to testify on 5th amendment grounds. For all we know, he was happy to sit pat there, and didn't proactively seek immunity at all.


Not saying he didn't run right out and ask for immunity, but Fitz wasn't on the scene in late September and early October.


Better link (durable as contents are added to blog) ...

http://noeasyanswer.blogspot.com/2007/01/libby-motion-in-limine-to-preclude.html

cboldt

... but I can see where the statement would be taken the wrong way. I'll change "contact with counsel" to soemthing that makes it clear the counsel was his personal lawyer.

clarice

We don't know when discussions began between Ari and the prosecution team--that is right. We know that he initiated the process within days after his aide and former Matthews producer made the utterly false 1x2x6 statement to the Wa Po which initially identified him as a "high Administration official".
We know that that certainly whetted the prosecution's appetite for whatever Fleischer could provide and perhaps in the absence of a written proffer proved tempting enough for a deal to be cut.

Do we know that no deal was cut until Fitz was appointed? I don't. It may have been granted early on. And if Armitage got immunity when he went to them in Oct, the prosecutors then had two officials providing info --enough to perhaps keep the game going.

Rick Ballard

I've nary a clue as to how Walton will rule but it seems to me that Wells is just slapping Fitz around for his "gamesmenship" in the opening:

[R]ead a newspaper article, which indicated that there was a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent. And he read that, and he knew that he had conveyed information about that woman, Valerie Wilson, to reporters. That was information that had been previously conveyed to him by Mr. Libby.
And he realized, when there was an ongoing criminal investigation, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but basically [WATCH ME PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH] it was one of those moments when your heart goes in your throat, and you think, I could be in very big trouble here. And the following day he obtained legal counsel and began discussing with his attorney what kind of predicament he was in.

Fitz tossed a nice red herring into his opening and Wells is trying to get Fitz to discuss how it tastes.

cboldt

-- Do we know that no deal was cut until Fitz was appointed? --


There is fair basis to infer that. Perhaps an utter fabrication, but emptywheel's paraphrase of Fitz's statement that he (personally) was reluctant to grant it, "pig in a poke" and all (I think that appears in some news accounts as well). Plus the date of grant as recited by Libby's counsel (and noted in the very same timeline that you cited).


I changed the September 28, 2003 bullet point to read ...

  • September 28, 2003 - Washington Post Sunday Page A01 article, "Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry," by Mike Allen and Dana Priest, precipitates Fleischer to hire a lawyer (that day or the next day) to advise him how to best avoid legal jeopardy

(link to article omitted above)

clarice

So here's the play..Fleischer's aide floats the fake 1x2x6 charge which suggests the very conspiracy that the mad dogs are hoping for, and then Ari reads it and (viola as we say) the scales fall from his eyes..he sees himself in Leavenworth and rushes to seek immunity without making any proffer whatsoever.

Chuckle..

Rick Ballard

With Ward & Connelly advising...

clarice

from cbldt--date of grant of immunity--

February 13, 2004 - Fitzgerald grants immunity to Fleischer (date noted at page 6 of this filing)
One week after Levine testifies to the grand jury about "procedures"

cboldt

... changed it again - got rid of the inflammatory "how to best avoid legal jeopardy" rhetoric.


Still no response from Fitz (to Libby's Friday filings).

clarice

Personally, I can't understand why people pay good money to go to movies or waste time with non-HBO dramas when real life is always so much more interesting and amusing..

This Levine/Fleischer play is even better than Rome although the costumes are worse.

cboldt

McClellan testified on February 6, 2003 too. Maybe he's the SAO at #1 is 1x2x6. FWIW, that Feb 13, 2004 date isn't "from me," it's "from Libby's counsel." Also FWIW, Fitz's grant was expanded on February 6, too. That looks to have been a busy day.

boris

That looks to have been a busy day.

Fitz: "Oh boy I'm getting a pony!"

Patrick R. Sullivan

'...it appears that the Judge seemed inclined to agree that the article was prejudicial in that it might suggest to jurors some criminal activity other than that which had been charged...'

He could show the judge a clip of Juan Williams' performance this morning on FNS for illustration.

KP

Add 6 or 7 days to the immunity date and maybe he knew the Wilson trip was a set up and Wilson was going to be used as a dupe like Ames and Howard were by their trainer, but this can't be right so the UFO response is over at Ace.

some

'...it appears that the Judge seemed inclined to agree that the article was prejudicial in that it might suggest to jurors some criminal activity other than that which had been charged...'

Which article? Where is it? Judge is bailing out on the criminal conspiracy so Fitz doesn't look stupid?

azaghal

boris, two things to keep in mind:


  • A criminal investigation requires a criminal predicate. 
    There is no general "anti-leaking" provision in federal criminal
    law--it all depends on what was leaked and, sometimes, why.  The
    IIPA is one such "anti-leaking" statute, and it has such specific
    provisions that it was clear from the get go that it would not apply to
    Plame.  It is quite apparent at this point that no other criminal
    statute regarding unauthorized "leaks" could be found to apply to
    anything that Libby did--and I'm sure every possibility and every
    extrapolation of a possibility was explored.

  • "Whistleblower" protection is also covered by statute, and there
    are specific provisions that lay out exactly who can claim
    whistleblower status and what that entails.  I've never heard that
    either Joe or Val tried to claim whistleblower status.  Unlikely,
    since that would probably entail admissions on their part that they in
    fact "leaked" classified information to reporters (or possibly that Val
    leaked to Joe) in violation of other criminal statutes.  Or, if
    not that, other embarrassing admissions.


Conclusion: Fitz was not authorized to use criminal process--like
compelling grand jury testimony, etc.--without a criminal
predicate.  Neither general "leak prevention" nor general "noble
whistleblower protection" are criminal predicates. Therefore, to get a handle on what significance his actions may have had--where he was trying to go with the investigation, etc.--you have to focus on specific statutes that he may have had in mind. The general language is good enough to whip up the lefties, but at some point Fitz had to put up or shut up in a legal sense--and this indictment and the resulting trial is the best he could do.

Sue, that is not necessarily OT.  The same DOJ lawyers who gave
Burglar his sweet plea deal and showed no curiousity as to the true
scope of his burgling were the ones who got this whole Plamegate thing
started before Fitz' appointment.  Now, some might consider that
coincidence and that there is no reason to suppose that DOJ career
lawyers have political agendas.  I think that's hopelessly naive.

Rick Ballard

azaghal,

Do you have any idea as to which statute Berger (or Deutsch) finally pled? They both pled to "misdemeanors" but I've yet to see a specific statute cited.

azaghal

Rick, that's a very good question. I believe it was a catchall charge of mishandling classified information. The kind of misdemeanor that could include not attaching a "Secret" cover sheet to a document, not hand carrying certain types of documents, keeping classified documents in your socks or underwear or at a construction site rather than a in a properly certified safe, etc. We'll have to see what we can find out about that. I don't doubt that these possibilities were explored for Libby, as well, but I don't think Fitz' agenda included charging misdemeanors.

cboldt

-- which statute Berger (or Deutsch) finally pled? --

Berger entered a guilty plea this morning at federal court in Washington, D.C. ... DOJ Press Release - April 1, 2005 [18 U.S.C. § 1924 (unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material)]

Seems he's been in trouble with the DOJ before ... Settlement of Civil Suit for Conflict of Interest

cathyf
Fitz was not authorized to use criminal process--like compelling grand jury testimony, etc.--without a criminal predicate.
That's one of the ironies of this case. The frothing BDS crowd is always talking about Bush's "power grabs" and "unconstitutional expansions of executive authority." Well, here it is: the president (he's the chief executive and the buck stops there) grossly misused the prosecutorial powers of his office to hide a purely administrative investigation by pretending that there was some criminal aspect. Back in the 16th century, King Henry VIII beheaded several nobles for the "crime" of saying that the king was impotent and infertile. Because he was king, he had the right to decree that this was a crime. So, in fact, he did not misuse the criminal justice system of England by torturing witnesses to tell who was ridiculing the king, or by convicting and executing the ridiculers in courts of law. So now it's 4.5 centuries later, and despite the fact the we have a constitution which demands accountability in appointments, and equality under the law, we have the executive appointing some completely non-accountable person with the power of subpeona and jail, and that person and the executive's other law-enforcement oficers spent 2 years investigating the question of who said that [the CIA are poopy-heads]. And in what context and when they said that [the CIA are poopy-heads] and whether everyone who testified as to when and where and what circumstances they discussed [the CIA poopyheads] testified perfectly accurately.

And not a single person objecting to Bush's "unprecedented expansions of executive authority" seems to be able to spare this case a thought. Yep, just pegging that old irony meter...

(So, what do you think of my Judge Tatel style of paraphrase?)

Crim

Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section DOJ. See why Fitz passed and got away with it?

Cri

Bush was put in power by dems. They knew we'd have some problems. Bush is the right person. The Executive Powers expansion was also expected. Now, before the election, they'll take away alot of power hoping a dem will be President. The problem is it won't be a dem.

Rick Ballard

Thanks, Cboldt. I believe that the language of Section 793(f)(1), with careful attention paid to "or information" and "delivered to anyone in violation of his trust" makes a right handy club for a prosecutor. True legal "jeopardy" may not, in fact, attach but jeopardy to ones reputation and bank account sure as hell does.

Cathyf,

The style part is great. Perfection would be reached by the inclusion of a vague reference to protection of First Amendment rights in attempt to get a good tummy scratch from the press.

azaghal

Rick, I just happened to have saved a copy of the recently released
report on Burglar.  Here's what the House had to say on p. 8, in
what I consider to be relevant part (my emphasis):



On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor
count of
Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents, in
violation of  18 USC 1924(a).



On September 8, 2005, US Magistrate Judge Deborah H. Robinson sentenced
Berger to two years probation, 100 hours of community service, a
$50,000 dollar fine, and revoked his security clearance for three
years.  Judge Robinson's
sentence was much more costly to Berger than that recommended by the
Department of Justice.  The Justice department initially
had proposed a fine of $10,000.  Judge
Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine is inadequate because it
doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."




I'd say that was probably the same statute that was used with
Deutch--just a wild ass guess (WAG).  Note: the same DOJ lawyers
who started the Jihad against Libby also handled this travesty.



Wikipedia has a general article on classification matters:



href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States


Sara (Squiggler)
L.A. Times Quotes Larry “Karl Rove’s Mother Killed Herself Because She Hated Him” Johnson as an Unbiased Expert on the Administration
azaghal

Hmmmm. Is this better?

Rick, I just happened to have saved a copy of the recently released report on Burglar. Here's what the House had to say on p. 8, in what I consider to be relevant part (my emphasis):

On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents, in violation of 18 USC 1924(a).

On September 8, 2005, US Magistrate Judge Deborah H. Robinson sentenced Berger to two years probation, 100 hours of community service, a $50,000 dollar fine, and revoked his security clearance for three years. Judge Robinson's
sentence was much more costly to Berger than that recommended by the Department of Justice.
The Justice department initially had proposed a fine of $10,000. Judge Robinson stated, "The court finds the fine is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense."



I'd say that was probably the same statute that was used with Deutch--just a wild ass guess (WAG). Note: the same DOJ lawyers who had so much difficulty in understanding "the seriousness of [Berger's] offense" also started the Jihad against Libby.

Wikipedia has a general article on classification matters:

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States


azaghal

cathyf wrote:

Back in the 16th century, King Henry VIII beheaded several nobles for the "crime" of saying that the king was impotent and infertile.

Geez, what do you think Joe Wilson would do if he were king and caught someone calling him an asshole? Or a "low level" offical? Hung, drawn and quartered?

topsecretk9

--Geez, what do you think Joe Wilson would do if he were king and caught someone calling him an asshole?--

The "National Command Authority" Joe or
"Very Important Hair" Joe?

Sara (Squiggler)

A "low level asshole" to boot.

lurker

Oh, this is hilarious:

L.A. Times Quotes Larry “Karl Rove’s Mother Killed Herself Because She Hated Him” Johnson as an Unbiased Expert on the Administration

boris

Wikipedia general article ... Classified information

<a href="URL">LABEL</a>

lurker

"The Pledge" now has over 28,000 signatures and growing.

Now we're reading about Russ Feingold's new resolution to remove racial profiling.

Will Russ Feingold ever get it...that in twenty years' time, his own children and grandkids will face actual nuclear threats and wars.

No.

cathyf

Nah, it's not about Joe Wilson being king. The whole thing about not being interested in anybody outside the WH or OVP talking about Plame is the ultimate in the Royal Presidency. This has nothing to do with national security (classified information is classified because of the nation's interests.) The "crime" here is doing something that the jackels in the press could twist into something that made the president look bad. So the president sends out his interrogators to find out which of his courtiers is guilty -- no matter that none of them could possibly imagine that such trivial gossip could have been twisted into anything like what it was. And certainly it was no matter at all that people outside of court were the ones guilty of the MSM's charges.

I suppose the WH and OVP staff are supposed to simply be grateful that Fitzgerald and the FBI didn't use the rack to torture information out of them...

Sara (Squiggler)


Joel Mowbray reports: The case for Romney


 Joel titles his report "Romney REALLY gets it."



lurker

It's about job security and making money. After all, didn't Joe Wilson have or had a business dealing with international trade?

Dan S

"Fitzgerald The notion that we're hiding the ball. There wasn't some representation of what he would say. There wasn't a factual proffer.

Walton do you accept counsel's representations that if his lawyer represented that he could say something about Mr. Libby about this case and he said that before he got immunity, would that qualify in giglio.

Fit What I object to is that we're playing fast and loose to something. They refused to give us a proffer. It wasn't as if someone said "here's what we'll give you" It wasn't something that we had laid out before us. For them to raise the issues as if we're hiding something. Proffers are usually turned over as Jencks.

Walton Mr Fleischer never provided a factual scenario of what he would say

F We were told he had relevant information. Frankly I didn't want to give him immunity, I was buying a pig in a poke. I did not know what we were going to get other than I knew it was going to be relevant to the case. They're asking for things they're not entitled to. It's not fair.

Wells We have a very different view of the law.

Walton–all he can tell you is that Fleischer had info on this case.

Wells I'm not sure that's what they're saying. Let me explain how govt and defense bar deal with these issues. Blind immunity is commonly referrred to as a situation where govt says, can you help me. Once I go beyond "I can help you." the jury has a right to know, that's negotiated testimony. If the lawyer made through oral representations, we have a right to let the jury know that this was bargained-for testimony. If they said it'll help you case…

Walton I assume Fitz didn't stand before me and make a misrepresentation. He knew Fleischer had info about the case.

Wells if the only statement is, he was on the airplane. If the defense lawyer, eventually we'll get to it maybe after the case, if defense lawyer gave some way it would be helpful. If it's truly blind immnunity, there's nothing to say. There was some kind of it'll help you.

Walton maybe lawyers have a reason to be suspect. That's what I quit practiing because I got tired of people saying I had done things that are not true.

Wells Mr Fitz and I have been at this game for a long time.

Wells we have a disagreement about the law.

Fitz I have been at the game long enough to know defense attorneys will say some things so they can learn things they're not entitled to learn."

I think the thing that leapt out at me in reading EW's live blog on the Ari deal is that twice (at least) Wells said something to the effect that "we disagree on the interpretation of the law." Fitz, on the other hand, was using a tone that strikes me as whiney (reminds me of a teenager, "it's NOT fair...") and accusing the defense of accusing him of violating the law.

And Wells reiterates, we have different views of the law.

Fitz keeps saying "he made no proffer," "no factual proffer," as if to say there's no tit for tat, except there IS it for tat. Ari's counsel clearly is implying they have testimony of potential value... and thus he's worth immunizing.

And from reading Wells' filing, I think it's a fair argument that that's enough that the defense should be able to inform the jury of that... and that if there's any MORE than that, it all has to be passed over to the defense.

Fitz seems to be arguing (in the EW transcript) that whatever he got is not enough to raise it to whatever threshhold the cited precedents establish. But unless I misread those cites (and I probably do!), they seem to me to say that just the fact that there was any give and take (as in, "I plead the 5th, but maybe if you were to immunize me...", "hmm, don't want to, will it be worth my while?," "It will be worth your while.") is enough that the jury should know some exchange exists.

Fitz seems to argue that since nothing in particular was mentioned, no specific fact, there is no exchange.

But I think "be nice to me and I'll be nice to you" IS an exchange. Now, that said, Fitz may feel his cojones turning blue at the end of the dates, but them's the risks! He has an expectation that his side, the prosecution (I hesitate to say the "government" in this situation for some reason), will receive value for granting Ari immunity. He's just trusting Ari's team to be honest and fair in what they give him.

clarice

To recap what we know :
Two Administration officials--Armitage and Fleischer saw the INR and leaked is to reporters deliberately and are not and will not be charges.

But because Chris Matthews' ex-producer and Fleischer's briefcase carrier, identified as "a high Administration official" said 2 WH officials told 6 reporters, Rove and Libby got tagged for major agita.
Neither of them saw the INR at all--and that was the only document which identified Ms Wilson, said she worked at the CIA and "played a role in sending him"

I do hope the govt officials and agents who occasionally peer in here know that we've got their number.

clarice

****"To recap what we know :
Two Administration officials--Armitage and Fleischer saw the INR and leaked iT to reporters deliberately and are not and will not be chargeD.**

kate

When I was researching the 1x2x6 story I came across this site. It's leftist and old but it's chock full of info about the leak and it is a good refresher. http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/3036

azaghal

Looks like I need a better html editor than Mozilla Composer--I don't want to type tags, but it's not doing the job for me. Maybe Bluefish or Quanta.

RichatUF
CIA will report directly to OVP - trip is classified, operatives involved. No further comments.

That is the part that has never made any sense to me. Why did the CIA give out the information about the wife to begin with? Why didn't they, if she really did work in the department that has covert operatives, not check her status and stop the OVP from asking those questions?

Or INR, or DOE, or State, or Jordanian Intelligence (if she infact went), or others in the CIA...right she's "covert", make that "classified",no she's really an "embarrasment"

RichatUF

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame