Ex-aide describes how lobbyist sought congressional help on pet projects
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:41 p.m. CT May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON - A convicted lobbyist described Tuesday how he obtained insider information and advice from Bush administration procurement chief David Safavian to advance two projects for Republican influence-peddler Jack Abramoff, who then took the official on a lavish golf trip to Scotland.
A partner of Abramoff’s at the time, Neil Volz also outlined in U.S. District Court how the Abramoff team received assistance from several Republican congressmen or their aides including Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Rep. Don Young of Alaska and Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio.
The government’s star witness against Safavian, Volz, was a former chief of staff to Ney. Volz has pleaded guilty to conspiracy for some of the behavior he testified about. Facing an 18- to 24-month prison sentence, he hopes cooperation with prosecutors will win him probation only.
Just weeks after the assistance, Safavian, Ney and two members of Ney’s staff accompanied Abramoff, Volz and other Abramoff associates on an August 2002 golf trip to the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland and then to London. Volz said the bills for $500-a-night hotel rooms in London, $100 rounds of drinks, $400 rounds of golf, dinners and travel on a private Gulfstream jet were paid by Abramoff and his staff, and he never saw Safavian pay any expenses.
On cross-examination, Safavian’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder got Volz to admit that Safavian told him in Scotland he was paying Abramoff $3,100 for his expenses.
Trying to pass the ‘smell test’
She also got Volz to acknowledge he once said that figure was “low but reasonable.” But Volz quickly explained that by “reasonable” he only meant that reporters wouldn’t question it. “I was more concerned about spin than potential legal consequences,” Volz added.
Prosecutor Nathaniel Edmonds used Volz’ descriptions of the costs to suggest the trip was far more expensive. Edmonds showed that Ney reported $1,200 in hotel expenses although Volz said Ney spent two nights in London in the Mandarin Hotel, which charged $500 a night for the congressional staff rooms, leaving only $200 to cover the cost of four nights at St. Andrews.
The Abramoff team sent Ney partially filled out draft financial disclosure forms for him to use in filing disclosures with Congress that falsely understated the total cost of the trip at $3,200, Volz testified.
“I thought that number passed the smell test,” Volz said, explaining that he hoped that reporters searching public records for travel abuses would pass right over it without asking questions.
In a statement, Ney’s spokesman, Brian J. Walsh, said, “Congressman Ney filed exactly what his office was told to be the cost of the trip ... what every other member who has taken a privately funded trip has done for years.”
In court, however, prosecutor Edmonds pointed out to the jury that the official date stamp on Ney’s disclosure form, due within 30 days of the trip, showed it was not filed until September 2004, the same month news stories appeared about the trip.
Government’s key witness
The prosecution turned Volz’s testimony into a tutorial on how a corrupt lobbyist like Volz gathers information, rewards officials who help influence government decisions and tries to operate in secrecy.
Safavian was the government’s top procurement official before he was indicted on charges of lying to investigators about assisting his ex-partner Abramoff while serving in 2002 as chief of staff at the General Services Administration, the government property management agency.
Volz testified that the Abramoff team referred to Safavian as a “champion” because he could get inside information not otherwise available to lobbyists.
He said Safavian gave advice on how to get information for use in secretly amending an election reform bill near passage in Congress so that it also directed the GSA to sell the so-called White Oak property in Silver Spring, Md., to a school Abramoff had established.
‘Rig the rules’
Volz also described how Safavian advised him on when to get letters from key congressmen to the GSA to alter a proposal to redevelop the Old Post Office in Washington in a way that would give one of Abramoff’s clients, the Chitimacha Indian tribe, an advantage over other bidders.
“We were trying to rig the rules so our client would have the best chance” of winning the redevelopment project, Volz testified.
Volz said he was frustrated because Congress was nearing its summer recess and would not be able to expedite a lease on the White Oak property. He said Ney reassured him that he could help Volz with "another legislative vehicle."
Nothing was added by Ney to the election legislation to help Abramoff. Weeks later, Abramoff, Safavian, Volz, Ney and two of his current aides took a lavish trip to Scotland.
Describing help they requested from Capito’s office on the White Oak project, Volz said they wanted to keep her role secret.
“She was up for re-election and this potentially could have put her in harm’s way on the campaign trail ... because this project doesn’t have anything to do with her district,” Volz explained.
Speaking for Capito late Tuesday, Jordan Stoick said the lawmaker had no knowledge of any conversations between her former chief of staff Mark Johnson and Volz and never consented to her name being used in the Abramoff project.
Ney is under criminal investigation in the Abramoff probe. Abramoff entered guilty pleas early this year in Washington, D.C., and Florida.
LINK
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Granted In Part, Denied In Part
It was win some, lose some for the Libby defense team as Judge Walton handed down his opinion (40 pages) and order (2 pages) regarding subpoenas to various news organizations.
I expect to read these later. Have a great weekend.
WORTH KNOWING: On Judy Miller, the court says her public accounts of her testimony are reliable:
...after reviewing the subpoenaed documents (the draft articles and
transcripts) and comparing them to the indictment and other news articles reflecting Miller’s anticipated testimony, there is no indication that Miller’s trial testimony will deviate in any way from her prior written statements.
But I find this to be baffling:
This Court has greater difficultly concluding that documents responsive to request four are relevant. This request seeks documents “reflecting or referring to any request or recommendation by Judith Miller, prior to July 14, 2003 . . . to pursue a news story or investigation relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger or his claims concerning that trip.” N.Y. Times’ Mem., Ex. A.
Although the defendant claims that documents responsive to this request could be used to attack Miller’s credibility because there appears to be
a dispute as to whether such a request was actually made, Def.’s Opp’n at 23-24, Miller’s memory of these events is at best only tangentially related to her memory of her conversations with the defendant. The relevance of these documents, therefore, is suspect. In fact, the only possible way documents responsive to this request could be relevant is if the defendant, during his cross-examination of Miller, is permitted to inquire into whether she sought to pursue a story on Ambassador Wilson and his trip to Niger. However, unless something occurs during the trial which the Court cannot currently envision, it is virtually inconceivable that this line of inquiry will be permitted.
Huh? Presumably Ms. Miller is going to be asked about why she was talking to Libby at all. Presumably she will be asked why there are entries for "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" in her notebook, and to explain her testimony that she may have discussed Ms. Plame with other sources. But the judge can't conceive of cirsumstances in which she will be asked whether she was actually working on a story?
TIME: The defense asked for
2. All documents, whenever prepared or received, indicating or suggesting that any employee or agent of Time Inc. other than Matthew Cooper was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was employed by the CIA.
Neither TIME nor Matt Cooper have any documents that are responsive to that.
However, we love Matt Cooper - the judge has ordered TIME to turn over the preliminary drafts of his "What I Told The Grand Jury" story becasue they are not consistent:
At oral argument on this motion, counsel for Time asserted that the drafts will merely be cumulative, as the drafts are simply repetitive of the published story. Id. at 104. As already discussed, only after Cooper testifies will documents which impeach his testimony become admissible. However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight
alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. See TI00011. Compare TI00030, MCX0013, MCX0021, with, MCX0003, 0005, 00027.20 This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be
consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment.
I have been saying since Day One that Matt Cooper would be a bad witness against Libby or Rove. And this may represent a straw in the wind against a Rove indictment, since Cooper would be a key witness there.
LINK
I expect to read these later. Have a great weekend.
WORTH KNOWING: On Judy Miller, the court says her public accounts of her testimony are reliable:
...after reviewing the subpoenaed documents (the draft articles and
transcripts) and comparing them to the indictment and other news articles reflecting Miller’s anticipated testimony, there is no indication that Miller’s trial testimony will deviate in any way from her prior written statements.
But I find this to be baffling:
This Court has greater difficultly concluding that documents responsive to request four are relevant. This request seeks documents “reflecting or referring to any request or recommendation by Judith Miller, prior to July 14, 2003 . . . to pursue a news story or investigation relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger or his claims concerning that trip.” N.Y. Times’ Mem., Ex. A.
Although the defendant claims that documents responsive to this request could be used to attack Miller’s credibility because there appears to be
a dispute as to whether such a request was actually made, Def.’s Opp’n at 23-24, Miller’s memory of these events is at best only tangentially related to her memory of her conversations with the defendant. The relevance of these documents, therefore, is suspect. In fact, the only possible way documents responsive to this request could be relevant is if the defendant, during his cross-examination of Miller, is permitted to inquire into whether she sought to pursue a story on Ambassador Wilson and his trip to Niger. However, unless something occurs during the trial which the Court cannot currently envision, it is virtually inconceivable that this line of inquiry will be permitted.
Huh? Presumably Ms. Miller is going to be asked about why she was talking to Libby at all. Presumably she will be asked why there are entries for "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" in her notebook, and to explain her testimony that she may have discussed Ms. Plame with other sources. But the judge can't conceive of cirsumstances in which she will be asked whether she was actually working on a story?
TIME: The defense asked for
2. All documents, whenever prepared or received, indicating or suggesting that any employee or agent of Time Inc. other than Matthew Cooper was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was employed by the CIA.
Neither TIME nor Matt Cooper have any documents that are responsive to that.
However, we love Matt Cooper - the judge has ordered TIME to turn over the preliminary drafts of his "What I Told The Grand Jury" story becasue they are not consistent:
At oral argument on this motion, counsel for Time asserted that the drafts will merely be cumulative, as the drafts are simply repetitive of the published story. Id. at 104. As already discussed, only after Cooper testifies will documents which impeach his testimony become admissible. However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight
alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. See TI00011. Compare TI00030, MCX0013, MCX0021, with, MCX0003, 0005, 00027.20 This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be
consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment.
I have been saying since Day One that Matt Cooper would be a bad witness against Libby or Rove. And this may represent a straw in the wind against a Rove indictment, since Cooper would be a key witness there.
LINK
Ready When You Are
By Jane Hamsher @ 8:54 pm
Emptywheel is setting the Plame-o-sphere afire today, first with Pt. II of her "Anatomy of a White House Smear" (Pt. I is here). Anyone looking to play a bit of catch-up with the known narrative on the CIA leak case would do well to start there, it’s on my bookmark bar. And while I’m at it, whoever is keeping the DKosopedia timeline up to date is doing a fantastic job (Quicksilver?), they’d already worked in the stuff from Murray Waas’s latest by the time I was writing it up yesterday.
Judge Walton ruled today on Libby’s requests for discovery from various media sources. Emptywheel also has a fine piece up" on this decision, but Libby doesn’t get much. The only thing that is potentially of interest are various drafts of Matt Cooper’s article "What I Told the Grand Jury" because of "slight alterations" that "the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper," according to Walton.
Tom Maguire is of course having a field day. But according to lawyers familiar with the documents, the difference in the drafts of the story are ‘trivial’ and "won’t affect the case."
No grand jury this week, no press conference, and no surprise. If I was Fitzgerald I sure wouldn’t mire myself in Rove until I’d settled as many of the Libby discovery issues as possible — dealing with the two cases at once just seems like an unnecessary complication to an already complicated situation. Fine by me.
Thank you firedoglake
Emptywheel is setting the Plame-o-sphere afire today, first with Pt. II of her "Anatomy of a White House Smear" (Pt. I is here). Anyone looking to play a bit of catch-up with the known narrative on the CIA leak case would do well to start there, it’s on my bookmark bar. And while I’m at it, whoever is keeping the DKosopedia timeline up to date is doing a fantastic job (Quicksilver?), they’d already worked in the stuff from Murray Waas’s latest by the time I was writing it up yesterday.
Judge Walton ruled today on Libby’s requests for discovery from various media sources. Emptywheel also has a fine piece up" on this decision, but Libby doesn’t get much. The only thing that is potentially of interest are various drafts of Matt Cooper’s article "What I Told the Grand Jury" because of "slight alterations" that "the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper," according to Walton.
Tom Maguire is of course having a field day. But according to lawyers familiar with the documents, the difference in the drafts of the story are ‘trivial’ and "won’t affect the case."
No grand jury this week, no press conference, and no surprise. If I was Fitzgerald I sure wouldn’t mire myself in Rove until I’d settled as many of the Libby discovery issues as possible — dealing with the two cases at once just seems like an unnecessary complication to an already complicated situation. Fine by me.
Thank you firedoglake
Friday, May 26, 2006
2 more Ney aides subpoenaed in Abramoff bribery case
Friday, May 26, 2006
Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau
Washington- Two more Capitol Hill aides who worked for U.S. Rep. Bob Ney have been caught up in the federal bribery investigation wrought by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Paul Vinovich, who served as Ney's top aide with the House Administration Committee, and Will Heaton, Ney's current chief of staff, have received subpoenas to appear as witnesses and provide testimony, congressional records show.
But at least one, Vinovich, is exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and won't testify at a trial that started this week involving favors allegedly given by Abramoff to a former government official.
Vinovich and Heaton accompanied Abramoff and Ney on an August 2002 golf trip aboard a private jet to Scotland, along with former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and former Ney aide Neil Volz. David Safavian, then a General Services Administration official, also was on the trip.
Federal prosecutors say Abramoff provided the trip as part of a plot to win separate favors from Ney and Safavian. But in the second day of Safavian's trial on charges of obstruction and making false statements, Justice Department lawyer Peter Zeidenberg told U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman Thursday that Vinovich won't testify because he has exercised his "Fifth Amendment privilege."
However, Vinovich's financial records will be introduced as evidence, Zeidenberg said.
A House Administration Committee spokesman confirmed that the Justice Department contacted Vinovich in connection with the investigation. The extent of his or Heaton's role in the case against Safavian is unclear, nor is it clear what role either might have in the ongoing investigation of Ney, who has not been charged.
Ney spokesman Brian Walsh confirmed that Heaton still works as the congressman's chief of staff but said he could not speak for him.
"As Congressman Ney's spokesman, though, I will tell you that the congressman has pledged the full cooperation of his office, and from day one he has been doing just that," Walsh said.
Although Safavian indicated that Abramoff had no business before the General Services Administration when he got its OK to travel with Abramoff, e-mails between them show that Abramoff repeatedly sought Safavian's help in obtaining federal property.
Safavian's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, says her client told the truth because Abramoff never submitted a bid for GSA properties. She complained to Friedman that witnesses she'd subpoenaed to testify on Safavian's behalf were all exercising their Fifth Amendment rights because they were either subjects or targets of federal investigators.
Friedman said there were three such witnesses.
Van Gelder would not identify the prospective witnesses or say whether Vinovich was among them. But she said Zeidenberg's statement confirmed that "Vinovich was on the trip and is under investigation."
Volz left Ney's staff in February 2002 to work as a lobbyist for Abramoff. He pleaded guilty this month to conspiring to violate mail and wire fraud laws. Volz is scheduled to testify today at Safavian's trial.
LINK
Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau
Washington- Two more Capitol Hill aides who worked for U.S. Rep. Bob Ney have been caught up in the federal bribery investigation wrought by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Paul Vinovich, who served as Ney's top aide with the House Administration Committee, and Will Heaton, Ney's current chief of staff, have received subpoenas to appear as witnesses and provide testimony, congressional records show.
But at least one, Vinovich, is exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and won't testify at a trial that started this week involving favors allegedly given by Abramoff to a former government official.
Vinovich and Heaton accompanied Abramoff and Ney on an August 2002 golf trip aboard a private jet to Scotland, along with former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and former Ney aide Neil Volz. David Safavian, then a General Services Administration official, also was on the trip.
Federal prosecutors say Abramoff provided the trip as part of a plot to win separate favors from Ney and Safavian. But in the second day of Safavian's trial on charges of obstruction and making false statements, Justice Department lawyer Peter Zeidenberg told U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman Thursday that Vinovich won't testify because he has exercised his "Fifth Amendment privilege."
However, Vinovich's financial records will be introduced as evidence, Zeidenberg said.
A House Administration Committee spokesman confirmed that the Justice Department contacted Vinovich in connection with the investigation. The extent of his or Heaton's role in the case against Safavian is unclear, nor is it clear what role either might have in the ongoing investigation of Ney, who has not been charged.
Ney spokesman Brian Walsh confirmed that Heaton still works as the congressman's chief of staff but said he could not speak for him.
"As Congressman Ney's spokesman, though, I will tell you that the congressman has pledged the full cooperation of his office, and from day one he has been doing just that," Walsh said.
Although Safavian indicated that Abramoff had no business before the General Services Administration when he got its OK to travel with Abramoff, e-mails between them show that Abramoff repeatedly sought Safavian's help in obtaining federal property.
Safavian's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, says her client told the truth because Abramoff never submitted a bid for GSA properties. She complained to Friedman that witnesses she'd subpoenaed to testify on Safavian's behalf were all exercising their Fifth Amendment rights because they were either subjects or targets of federal investigators.
Friedman said there were three such witnesses.
Van Gelder would not identify the prospective witnesses or say whether Vinovich was among them. But she said Zeidenberg's statement confirmed that "Vinovich was on the trip and is under investigation."
Volz left Ney's staff in February 2002 to work as a lobbyist for Abramoff. He pleaded guilty this month to conspiring to violate mail and wire fraud laws. Volz is scheduled to testify today at Safavian's trial.
LINK
Um, I forgot 7 people talked of spy - Libby
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Borrowing a defense used by tax evaders and schoolkids who don't do their homework, Vice President Cheney's indicted former top adviser told a grand jury he forgot that seven people told him about CIA spy Valerie Plame.
Lewis (Scooter) Libby is charged with lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he first learned of Plame's identity. Cheney, his boss, was among those who told Libby that an Iraq war critic's wife worked at the CIA, prosecutors allege.
But Libby said in his now-unsealed 2004 testimony that "it seemed to me" he heard about Plame "for the first time" from NBC broadcaster Tim Russert in July 2003.
Russert denies telling Libby that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was an undercover spy - a disclosure now at the center of a scandal rocking the White House.
On March 5, 2004, a prosecutor asked Libby if it was "fair" to say he knew Plame's CIA identity a month before Russert supposedly revealed it to him.
"I had forgotten it," Libby explained.
Solomon Wisenberg, a lawyer who probed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said, "Barring some unusual mental condition, to make a claim like that is not likely going to fly."
Libby allegedly discussed Plame with six others besides Cheney in June 2003, including CIA briefer Craig Schmall.
But Libby's lawyers blame any "errors" in his testimony on "confusion, mistake or faulty memory."
In the case of Libby's chats with Cheney about Wilson - such as one after he spoke to Russert - he said, "When I had that conversation I had forgotten about the earlier conversations in which [Cheney] told me ... that the wife worked at the CIA."
LINK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Borrowing a defense used by tax evaders and schoolkids who don't do their homework, Vice President Cheney's indicted former top adviser told a grand jury he forgot that seven people told him about CIA spy Valerie Plame.
Lewis (Scooter) Libby is charged with lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he first learned of Plame's identity. Cheney, his boss, was among those who told Libby that an Iraq war critic's wife worked at the CIA, prosecutors allege.
But Libby said in his now-unsealed 2004 testimony that "it seemed to me" he heard about Plame "for the first time" from NBC broadcaster Tim Russert in July 2003.
Russert denies telling Libby that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was an undercover spy - a disclosure now at the center of a scandal rocking the White House.
On March 5, 2004, a prosecutor asked Libby if it was "fair" to say he knew Plame's CIA identity a month before Russert supposedly revealed it to him.
"I had forgotten it," Libby explained.
Solomon Wisenberg, a lawyer who probed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said, "Barring some unusual mental condition, to make a claim like that is not likely going to fly."
Libby allegedly discussed Plame with six others besides Cheney in June 2003, including CIA briefer Craig Schmall.
But Libby's lawyers blame any "errors" in his testimony on "confusion, mistake or faulty memory."
In the case of Libby's chats with Cheney about Wilson - such as one after he spoke to Russert - he said, "When I had that conversation I had forgotten about the earlier conversations in which [Cheney] told me ... that the wife worked at the CIA."
LINK
Judge Orders 'Time' to Turn Over Libby Documents -- 'NYT' Spared?
Published: May 26, 2006 1:30 PM ET
WASHINGTON A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.
The order by U.S. District Reggie B. Walton also said the New York Times might have to turn over some information but reduced the scope of documents the newspaper and other news organizations would have to provide to lawyers for the defendant, former top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Citing a lack of relevancy, Walton said that Judith Miller, a former Times reporter, doesn't have to provide two notebooks, her phone records or appointment calendars to lawyers for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.
Walton also said NBC News does not have to provide Libby's defense team with one page of undated notes taken by correspondent Andrea Mitchell because she is unlikely to testify at Libby's perjury trial, which is set for January.
In granting in part and denying in part Libby's subpoenas for the media's records, Walton ruled that reporters do not have a right to refuse to provide notes, drafts of articles or other information in a criminal case.
"The First Amendment does not protect a news reporter or that reporter's news organization from producing documents ... in a criminal case," Walton wrote in a 40-page ruling.
Walton said Time magazine must provide Libby's lawyers with drafts of first-person stories that reporter Matthew Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby because the judge said he noticed inconsistencies between them.
All of the news organizations had asked Walton to review the materials sought by Libby-- including e-mails, drafts of articles and reporters' notes-- in hopes of convincing him that they were not relevant and that the defense was on a "fishing expedition."
During that review, Walton said, he found "a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles" Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby and the reporter's first-person account of his testimony before a federal grand jury.
"This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions," Walton wrote.
It is unclear from Walton's ruling what those inconsistencies are.
LINK
WASHINGTON A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.
The order by U.S. District Reggie B. Walton also said the New York Times might have to turn over some information but reduced the scope of documents the newspaper and other news organizations would have to provide to lawyers for the defendant, former top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Citing a lack of relevancy, Walton said that Judith Miller, a former Times reporter, doesn't have to provide two notebooks, her phone records or appointment calendars to lawyers for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.
Walton also said NBC News does not have to provide Libby's defense team with one page of undated notes taken by correspondent Andrea Mitchell because she is unlikely to testify at Libby's perjury trial, which is set for January.
In granting in part and denying in part Libby's subpoenas for the media's records, Walton ruled that reporters do not have a right to refuse to provide notes, drafts of articles or other information in a criminal case.
"The First Amendment does not protect a news reporter or that reporter's news organization from producing documents ... in a criminal case," Walton wrote in a 40-page ruling.
Walton said Time magazine must provide Libby's lawyers with drafts of first-person stories that reporter Matthew Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby because the judge said he noticed inconsistencies between them.
All of the news organizations had asked Walton to review the materials sought by Libby-- including e-mails, drafts of articles and reporters' notes-- in hopes of convincing him that they were not relevant and that the defense was on a "fishing expedition."
During that review, Walton said, he found "a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles" Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby and the reporter's first-person account of his testimony before a federal grand jury.
"This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions," Walton wrote.
It is unclear from Walton's ruling what those inconsistencies are.
LINK
SOURCE: Abramoff Considered Hastert ‘A Reliable Ally For His Clients’
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) continues to deny he is under investigation in the Jack Abramoff conspiracy case, despite an ABC report by Brian Ross saying he is “in the mix.”
But Kim Eisler, national editor of the Washingtonian magazine and friend of Abramoff, told Think Progress that “Jack considered Hastert a reliable ally for his clients.”
Abramoff evidently trusted Hastert enough to have him help one of his tribal clients in Louisiana, far from Hastert’s district in Illinois. The client, the Coushatta tribe, opposed a plan by the Jena Band tribe to open a competing casino in Louisiana. Abramoff successfully lobbied his congressional allies to write a June 10, 2003, letter to then Interior Secretary Gail Norton opposing the casino. Co-signers on the letter included Hastert and Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Eric Cantor (R-VA), a group of people “who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues.”
Note that Abramoff held a fundraiser for the Speaker on June 3, a week before Hastert signed the letter. At that event — hosted at Abramoff’s restaurant — Abramoff’s firm and tribal clients gave at least $21,500 to Hastert’s PAC. Eisler also tells Think Progress that “the pictures of Bush that I saw at Jack’s house several months ago, many of them were taken at a Hastert fundraiser.”
It’s hard to imagine that the FBI could responsibly investigate Abramoff’s corrupt dealings without putting Hastert “in the mix.”
LINK
But Kim Eisler, national editor of the Washingtonian magazine and friend of Abramoff, told Think Progress that “Jack considered Hastert a reliable ally for his clients.”
Abramoff evidently trusted Hastert enough to have him help one of his tribal clients in Louisiana, far from Hastert’s district in Illinois. The client, the Coushatta tribe, opposed a plan by the Jena Band tribe to open a competing casino in Louisiana. Abramoff successfully lobbied his congressional allies to write a June 10, 2003, letter to then Interior Secretary Gail Norton opposing the casino. Co-signers on the letter included Hastert and Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Eric Cantor (R-VA), a group of people “who do not normally weigh in on Indian issues.”
Note that Abramoff held a fundraiser for the Speaker on June 3, a week before Hastert signed the letter. At that event — hosted at Abramoff’s restaurant — Abramoff’s firm and tribal clients gave at least $21,500 to Hastert’s PAC. Eisler also tells Think Progress that “the pictures of Bush that I saw at Jack’s house several months ago, many of them were taken at a Hastert fundraiser.”
It’s hard to imagine that the FBI could responsibly investigate Abramoff’s corrupt dealings without putting Hastert “in the mix.”
LINK
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Rove-Novak Call Was Concern To Leak Investigators
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.
Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.
Ashcroft oversaw the CIA-Plame leak probe for three months until he recused himself and allowed Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to be named to take over the investigation on December 30, 2003. Ashcroft received routine briefings about the status of the investigation from October to December of that year.
Sources said that Ashcroft received a special briefing on the highly sensitive issue of the September 29 conversation between Novak and Rove because of the concerns of federal investigators that a well-known journalist might have been involved in an effort to not only protect a source but also work in tandem with the president's chief political adviser to stymie the FBI.
Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony. Rove had been one of the "two senior administration" officials who had been sources for the July 14, 2003, column in which Novak outed Plame as an "agency operative." Rove and Novak had talked about Plame on July 9, five days before Novak's column was published.
Rove also told the grand jury, according to sources, that in the September 29 conversation, Novak referred to a 1992 incident in which Rove had been fired from the Texas arm of President George H.W. Bush's re-election effort; Rove lost his job because the Bush campaign believed that he had been the source for a Novak column that criticized the campaign's internal workings.
Rove told the grand jury that during the September 29 call, Novak said he would make sure that nothing similar would happen to Rove in the CIA-Plame leak probe. Rove has testified that he recalled Novak saying something like, "I'm not going to let that happen to you again," according to those familiar with the testimony. Rove told the grand jury that the inference he took away from the conversation was that Novak would say that Rove was not a source of information for the column about Plame. Rove further testified that he believed he might not have been the source because when Novak mentioned to Rove that Plame worked for the CIA, Rove simply responded that he had heard the same information.
Asked during his grand jury appearance his reaction to the telephone call, Rove characterized it as a "curious conversation" and didn't know what to make of it, according to people familiar with his testimony.
James Hamilton, an attorney for Novak, said he could not comment on the ongoing CIA leak probe. Ashcroft, now in private practice, did not respond through a spokesperson to inquiries for this article. A spokesman for Fitzgerald said that the special prosecutor's office would not comment on the matter.
A spokesman for Rove, Mark Corallo, said, "Karl Rove has never urged anyone directly or indirectly to withhold information from the special counsel or testify falsely."
Rove, according to attorneys involved in the case, volunteered the information about the September 29 call during his initial interview with FBI agents in the fall of 2003.
Neither Rove nor Novak has been charged in the leak case, and legal sources say that Fitzgerald faces an especially high legal hurdle in bringing charges involving a private conversation between two people.
Investigators' Concerns
Foremost among the reasons that federal investigators harbored suspicions about the September 29 conversation was its timing. Three days earlier, NBC broke the news that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a probe into the leaking of Plame's identity. During the noon news briefing at the White House on September 29, various reporters asked spokesman Scott McClellan repeatedly whether Justice was indeed investigating the Plame leak.
"If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the president would want it to be looked into," McClellan responded. "And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so."
In fact, Justice was already preparing to announce such a criminal probe, and the department made the formal announcement the following day, September 30.
Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who has represented numerous clients in several special-prosecutor investigations, said in an interview: "It is the better part of wisdom and standing instruction that witnesses to an investigation do not talk to other witnesses about the case when the case is still pending. It raises the inference that they are comparing each other's recollections and altering or shaping each other's testimony."
Brand has advised his clients not to talk to other witnesses in federal criminal investigations, he said, because there is a "thin line between refreshing each other's recollections ... and suborning someone to lie under oath."
Mark Feldstein, the director of journalism programs at George Washington University, said that Novak apparently acted outside traditional journalistic standards by reaching out to Rove after he believed that a criminal investigation had commenced: "A journalist's natural instinct is to protect his source. Were there no criminal investigation, it would have been more than appropriate for a reporter to say to a source, 'Don't worry, I'm not going to out you.' But if there is a criminal investigation under way, you can't escape the inference that you are calling to coordinate your stories. You go very quickly from being a stand-up reporter to impairing a criminal investigation."
A second reason that federal investigators were suspicious, sources said, is that they believed that after the September 29 call, Novak shifted his account of his July 9, 2003, conversation with Rove to show that administration officials had a passive role in leaking Plame's identity.
On July 22, 2003 -- eight days after the publication of Novak's column on Plame -- Newsday reporters Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce quoted Novak as telling them in an interview that it was White House officials who encouraged him to write about Plame. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," Newsday quoted Novak as saying about Plame. "They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."
If Novak's interview with Phelps and Royce was accurate, sources said, it suggests that Rove was actively involved in trying to expose Plame's CIA job.
Novak did not speak publicly on the matter again until September 29 -- later on the same day as his conversation with Rove in which he assured the president's chief political aide that he would protect him in the forthcoming Justice Department investigation. What Novak said publicly was different from the earlier account in Newsday:
"I have been beleaguered by television networks around the world, but I am reserving my say for Crossfire," Novak said on his own CNN program, which is no longer on the air. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph C.] Wilson's report [on his Niger trip], when [the official] told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.
"As a professional journalist with 46 years' experience in Washington, I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is -- he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."
In explaining the discrepancy between what he told Newsday a week after he outed Plame and everything he said later regarding Plame, Novak has said that Phelps "badly misquoted" him. Phelps, who is Newsday's Washington bureau chief, denied that, saying he took accurate notes of his interview with Novak and reported exactly what Novak told him.
Novak's quotes in Newsday -- that administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country -- were consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House officials for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Government witnesses who have testified in Fitzgerald's investigation have consistently told that story, too, sources said.
Novak's disclosure of Plame's covert CIA job was part of a broader White House effort to discredit Wilson, who had alleged that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.
To blunt Wilson's criticism, Rove; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the then-chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney; and at least one other senior administration official mounted an intensive effort alleging, among other things, that Wilson's CIA-sponsored mission to Niger amounted to nepotism.
Rove, Libby, and at least a third administration official told Novak, Cooper, Miller, and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post about Plame's CIA job. Rove has said he discussed Plame with Novak and Cooper.
A third reason that investigators are said to be concerned about a possible cover story was the grand jury testimony of both Novak and Rove about their July 9, 2003, conversation. On that day, Novak was still reporting for his July 14 column.
Novak and Rove have testified that it was Novak, not Rove, who raised the subject of Plame's CIA job and Wilson's trip to Niger, according to people familiar with the testimony of both men.
Rove has testified that he simply told the columnist that he had heard much the same information about Plame, which perhaps was nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. Novak's account of the July 9 call matched Rove's. Investigators were suspicious that, if this version was true, the columnist would have relied on Rove as one of his two sources to out Plame as an "agency operative."
Ashcroft was advised during the briefing that investigators had strong reservations about the veracity of the Novak and Rove accounts of the July 9 conversation. If Rove had simply said that he heard the same information that Novak did, investigators wondered why Novak would have relied on such an offhand comment as the basis for writing the column. Investigators also wondered why Novak had not at least asked Rove about what else he knew about Plame, sources said.
Geneva Overholser, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, questioned the propriety of Novak's using Rove as a source on the Plame story if, in fact, Rove had passed along only unsubstantiated gossip.
"It's very hard for me to believe that any journalist would write a story of such importance based on someone making an offhand comment that 'I heard that too,'" Overholser, who is a former chair of the Pulitzer Prize board and a former editor of The Des Moines Register, said in an interview. "A comment like that could mean that it's just the gossip going around. That means something very different than an affirmation to go with a story. If that was the basis for Novak's story, it was the slimmest of reeds."
Weighing the Facts
Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame. Rove has testified that he did not learn that Plame was a CIA operative from classified information, that he was not part of a campaign with Libby or other White House officials to discredit Wilson or out Plame, and that any information that he provided Novak and Cooper about Plame's CIA job was only unsubstantiated gossip.
According to sources, Rove told the FBI and testified to the federal grand jury that he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a person whose name he could not remember. That person, he said, might have been a journalist, although he was not certain. Rove has also said that he could not recall whether the conversation took place in person or over the telephone.
Rove has testified that he heard more about Plame from Novak, who had originally called him on July 9 about an entirely different matter. It was only at the end of their conversation that Rove heard that Plame worked for the CIA and had some role in sending her husband on his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, Rove has testified. Having been told this information by Novak, Rove told the FBI, he simply said he had heard the same thing.
Rove told the FBI that on July 11, 2003, two days after his conversation with Novak, he spoke privately with Libby at the end of a White House senior staff meeting. According to Rove's account, he told Libby of his conversation with Novak, whereupon Libby told him that he, too, had heard the same information from journalists who were writing about the Niger controversy.
Rove has testified that based on his conversation with the first person he had spoken to (whom he cannot identify), what Novak told him, and what Libby said, he had come to believe that Plame might have worked for the CIA.
The grand jury indicted Libby in the CIA leak case last October on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for attempting to conceal his own role in leaking information about Plame to the media. Central to those charges are allegations by Fitzgerald that Libby first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from Vice President Cheney and other government officials, not journalists.
On July 11, 2003, the same day Rove says he spoke to Libby, Rove told Time magazine's Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA. Although Rove has said he has little recollection of his conversation with Cooper, he has testified that similar to his conversation with Novak, he passed along to Cooper the same rumors about Plame he had originally heard from journalists.
Fitzgerald is still investigating Rove for possible perjury and obstruction of justice for Rove's failure to disclose in his initial FBI interview and his initial grand jury testimony that he had provided information about Plame to Cooper. Rove has said that his failure to disclose his conversation with Cooper was because of a faulty memory.
As Fitzgerald considers whether to bring charges against Rove, central to any final determination will be whether Rove's omissions were purposeful.
Dan Richman, a law school professor at Fordham University and a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, says that perjury and obstruction cases are difficult to bring. "In many instances, you almost have to literally take the jury inside a defendant's head to demonstrate their intent," he said.
As of now, it appears unlikely that Fitzgerald will bring charges related to the September 29 conversation, according to Richman and other legal experts. Even if the prosecutor and his investigative team conclude that Rove and Novak did indeed devise a cover story to protect Rove, it is simply too difficult to prove what happened in a private conversation between two people.
A longtime friend of Rove, who doesn't have firsthand knowledge of the CIA leak case but who knows both Rove and Novak well, doubts that Fitzgerald could get a conviction -- "as long as neither [Novak nor Rove] breaks, and there is no reason for them to, no matter how much evidence there is. These are two people who go way back, and they are going to look out for each other."
Richman says that a grand jury could consider circumstantial evidence in weighing whether to bring charges, so long as there is also other substantial evidence, and that the prosecutor can present that evidence at trial.
"It's possible that prosecutors would view their [September 29] conversation as the beginning of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, given that they had reason to believe that an investigation would soon be under way," says Richman. "It's even more likely that this conversation would help prosecutors shed light on Rove's motivations and intent when he later spoke to investigators."
LINK
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.
Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.
Ashcroft oversaw the CIA-Plame leak probe for three months until he recused himself and allowed Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to be named to take over the investigation on December 30, 2003. Ashcroft received routine briefings about the status of the investigation from October to December of that year.
Sources said that Ashcroft received a special briefing on the highly sensitive issue of the September 29 conversation between Novak and Rove because of the concerns of federal investigators that a well-known journalist might have been involved in an effort to not only protect a source but also work in tandem with the president's chief political adviser to stymie the FBI.
Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony. Rove had been one of the "two senior administration" officials who had been sources for the July 14, 2003, column in which Novak outed Plame as an "agency operative." Rove and Novak had talked about Plame on July 9, five days before Novak's column was published.
Rove also told the grand jury, according to sources, that in the September 29 conversation, Novak referred to a 1992 incident in which Rove had been fired from the Texas arm of President George H.W. Bush's re-election effort; Rove lost his job because the Bush campaign believed that he had been the source for a Novak column that criticized the campaign's internal workings.
Rove told the grand jury that during the September 29 call, Novak said he would make sure that nothing similar would happen to Rove in the CIA-Plame leak probe. Rove has testified that he recalled Novak saying something like, "I'm not going to let that happen to you again," according to those familiar with the testimony. Rove told the grand jury that the inference he took away from the conversation was that Novak would say that Rove was not a source of information for the column about Plame. Rove further testified that he believed he might not have been the source because when Novak mentioned to Rove that Plame worked for the CIA, Rove simply responded that he had heard the same information.
Asked during his grand jury appearance his reaction to the telephone call, Rove characterized it as a "curious conversation" and didn't know what to make of it, according to people familiar with his testimony.
James Hamilton, an attorney for Novak, said he could not comment on the ongoing CIA leak probe. Ashcroft, now in private practice, did not respond through a spokesperson to inquiries for this article. A spokesman for Fitzgerald said that the special prosecutor's office would not comment on the matter.
A spokesman for Rove, Mark Corallo, said, "Karl Rove has never urged anyone directly or indirectly to withhold information from the special counsel or testify falsely."
Rove, according to attorneys involved in the case, volunteered the information about the September 29 call during his initial interview with FBI agents in the fall of 2003.
Neither Rove nor Novak has been charged in the leak case, and legal sources say that Fitzgerald faces an especially high legal hurdle in bringing charges involving a private conversation between two people.
Investigators' Concerns
Foremost among the reasons that federal investigators harbored suspicions about the September 29 conversation was its timing. Three days earlier, NBC broke the news that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a probe into the leaking of Plame's identity. During the noon news briefing at the White House on September 29, various reporters asked spokesman Scott McClellan repeatedly whether Justice was indeed investigating the Plame leak.
"If someone leaked classified information of the nature that has been reported, absolutely, the president would want it to be looked into," McClellan responded. "And the Justice Department would be the appropriate agency to do so."
In fact, Justice was already preparing to announce such a criminal probe, and the department made the formal announcement the following day, September 30.
Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who has represented numerous clients in several special-prosecutor investigations, said in an interview: "It is the better part of wisdom and standing instruction that witnesses to an investigation do not talk to other witnesses about the case when the case is still pending. It raises the inference that they are comparing each other's recollections and altering or shaping each other's testimony."
Brand has advised his clients not to talk to other witnesses in federal criminal investigations, he said, because there is a "thin line between refreshing each other's recollections ... and suborning someone to lie under oath."
Mark Feldstein, the director of journalism programs at George Washington University, said that Novak apparently acted outside traditional journalistic standards by reaching out to Rove after he believed that a criminal investigation had commenced: "A journalist's natural instinct is to protect his source. Were there no criminal investigation, it would have been more than appropriate for a reporter to say to a source, 'Don't worry, I'm not going to out you.' But if there is a criminal investigation under way, you can't escape the inference that you are calling to coordinate your stories. You go very quickly from being a stand-up reporter to impairing a criminal investigation."
A second reason that federal investigators were suspicious, sources said, is that they believed that after the September 29 call, Novak shifted his account of his July 9, 2003, conversation with Rove to show that administration officials had a passive role in leaking Plame's identity.
On July 22, 2003 -- eight days after the publication of Novak's column on Plame -- Newsday reporters Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce quoted Novak as telling them in an interview that it was White House officials who encouraged him to write about Plame. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," Newsday quoted Novak as saying about Plame. "They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."
If Novak's interview with Phelps and Royce was accurate, sources said, it suggests that Rove was actively involved in trying to expose Plame's CIA job.
Novak did not speak publicly on the matter again until September 29 -- later on the same day as his conversation with Rove in which he assured the president's chief political aide that he would protect him in the forthcoming Justice Department investigation. What Novak said publicly was different from the earlier account in Newsday:
"I have been beleaguered by television networks around the world, but I am reserving my say for Crossfire," Novak said on his own CNN program, which is no longer on the air. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph C.] Wilson's report [on his Niger trip], when [the official] told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.
"As a professional journalist with 46 years' experience in Washington, I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is -- he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else."
In explaining the discrepancy between what he told Newsday a week after he outed Plame and everything he said later regarding Plame, Novak has said that Phelps "badly misquoted" him. Phelps, who is Newsday's Washington bureau chief, denied that, saying he took accurate notes of his interview with Novak and reported exactly what Novak told him.
Novak's quotes in Newsday -- that administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country -- were consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House officials for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Government witnesses who have testified in Fitzgerald's investigation have consistently told that story, too, sources said.
Novak's disclosure of Plame's covert CIA job was part of a broader White House effort to discredit Wilson, who had alleged that the Bush administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq.
To blunt Wilson's criticism, Rove; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the then-chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney; and at least one other senior administration official mounted an intensive effort alleging, among other things, that Wilson's CIA-sponsored mission to Niger amounted to nepotism.
Rove, Libby, and at least a third administration official told Novak, Cooper, Miller, and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post about Plame's CIA job. Rove has said he discussed Plame with Novak and Cooper.
A third reason that investigators are said to be concerned about a possible cover story was the grand jury testimony of both Novak and Rove about their July 9, 2003, conversation. On that day, Novak was still reporting for his July 14 column.
Novak and Rove have testified that it was Novak, not Rove, who raised the subject of Plame's CIA job and Wilson's trip to Niger, according to people familiar with the testimony of both men.
Rove has testified that he simply told the columnist that he had heard much the same information about Plame, which perhaps was nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. Novak's account of the July 9 call matched Rove's. Investigators were suspicious that, if this version was true, the columnist would have relied on Rove as one of his two sources to out Plame as an "agency operative."
Ashcroft was advised during the briefing that investigators had strong reservations about the veracity of the Novak and Rove accounts of the July 9 conversation. If Rove had simply said that he heard the same information that Novak did, investigators wondered why Novak would have relied on such an offhand comment as the basis for writing the column. Investigators also wondered why Novak had not at least asked Rove about what else he knew about Plame, sources said.
Geneva Overholser, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, questioned the propriety of Novak's using Rove as a source on the Plame story if, in fact, Rove had passed along only unsubstantiated gossip.
"It's very hard for me to believe that any journalist would write a story of such importance based on someone making an offhand comment that 'I heard that too,'" Overholser, who is a former chair of the Pulitzer Prize board and a former editor of The Des Moines Register, said in an interview. "A comment like that could mean that it's just the gossip going around. That means something very different than an affirmation to go with a story. If that was the basis for Novak's story, it was the slimmest of reeds."
Weighing the Facts
Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame. Rove has testified that he did not learn that Plame was a CIA operative from classified information, that he was not part of a campaign with Libby or other White House officials to discredit Wilson or out Plame, and that any information that he provided Novak and Cooper about Plame's CIA job was only unsubstantiated gossip.
According to sources, Rove told the FBI and testified to the federal grand jury that he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a person whose name he could not remember. That person, he said, might have been a journalist, although he was not certain. Rove has also said that he could not recall whether the conversation took place in person or over the telephone.
Rove has testified that he heard more about Plame from Novak, who had originally called him on July 9 about an entirely different matter. It was only at the end of their conversation that Rove heard that Plame worked for the CIA and had some role in sending her husband on his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, Rove has testified. Having been told this information by Novak, Rove told the FBI, he simply said he had heard the same thing.
Rove told the FBI that on July 11, 2003, two days after his conversation with Novak, he spoke privately with Libby at the end of a White House senior staff meeting. According to Rove's account, he told Libby of his conversation with Novak, whereupon Libby told him that he, too, had heard the same information from journalists who were writing about the Niger controversy.
Rove has testified that based on his conversation with the first person he had spoken to (whom he cannot identify), what Novak told him, and what Libby said, he had come to believe that Plame might have worked for the CIA.
The grand jury indicted Libby in the CIA leak case last October on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for attempting to conceal his own role in leaking information about Plame to the media. Central to those charges are allegations by Fitzgerald that Libby first learned that Plame worked for the CIA from Vice President Cheney and other government officials, not journalists.
On July 11, 2003, the same day Rove says he spoke to Libby, Rove told Time magazine's Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA. Although Rove has said he has little recollection of his conversation with Cooper, he has testified that similar to his conversation with Novak, he passed along to Cooper the same rumors about Plame he had originally heard from journalists.
Fitzgerald is still investigating Rove for possible perjury and obstruction of justice for Rove's failure to disclose in his initial FBI interview and his initial grand jury testimony that he had provided information about Plame to Cooper. Rove has said that his failure to disclose his conversation with Cooper was because of a faulty memory.
As Fitzgerald considers whether to bring charges against Rove, central to any final determination will be whether Rove's omissions were purposeful.
Dan Richman, a law school professor at Fordham University and a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, says that perjury and obstruction cases are difficult to bring. "In many instances, you almost have to literally take the jury inside a defendant's head to demonstrate their intent," he said.
As of now, it appears unlikely that Fitzgerald will bring charges related to the September 29 conversation, according to Richman and other legal experts. Even if the prosecutor and his investigative team conclude that Rove and Novak did indeed devise a cover story to protect Rove, it is simply too difficult to prove what happened in a private conversation between two people.
A longtime friend of Rove, who doesn't have firsthand knowledge of the CIA leak case but who knows both Rove and Novak well, doubts that Fitzgerald could get a conviction -- "as long as neither [Novak nor Rove] breaks, and there is no reason for them to, no matter how much evidence there is. These are two people who go way back, and they are going to look out for each other."
Richman says that a grand jury could consider circumstantial evidence in weighing whether to bring charges, so long as there is also other substantial evidence, and that the prosecutor can present that evidence at trial.
"It's possible that prosecutors would view their [September 29] conversation as the beginning of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, given that they had reason to believe that an investigation would soon be under way," says Richman. "It's even more likely that this conversation would help prosecutors shed light on Rove's motivations and intent when he later spoke to investigators."
LINK
Waas: Rove Was Novak's Source; Two Men May Have Planned Cover-Up
By Justin Rood - May 25, 2006, 1:09 PM
National Journal's Murray Waas reports that Karl Rove was in fact columnist Robert Novak's source for learning Valerie Plame's identity, and that the two men, upon learning of a federal investigation, spoke and may have created a false cover story to hide the truth.
In other words, there's mounting evidence that Novak and Rove not only lied to the FBI and grand jury, but they conspired to obstruct justice. Waas explains, with greater finesse:
On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men. . . .
Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame.
Before the conversation, Waas notes, Novak's story was that White House officials had given him Plame's name and encouraged him to write about it. After news of the investigation was broken on Sept. 26, Novak's story flipped. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," he said on Sept. 29.
Both men told investigators and the grand jury that in July 2003, Novak called Rove and asked him about an "unsubstantiated rumor" about Plame's identity, and Rove said he had heard the same thing.
According to Waas, the investigators are having a hard time swallowing the story. After all, why would a guy with 46 years' experience out a CIA operative based on himself and Rove hearing an "unsubstantiated rumor?"
LINK
National Journal's Murray Waas reports that Karl Rove was in fact columnist Robert Novak's source for learning Valerie Plame's identity, and that the two men, upon learning of a federal investigation, spoke and may have created a false cover story to hide the truth.
In other words, there's mounting evidence that Novak and Rove not only lied to the FBI and grand jury, but they conspired to obstruct justice. Waas explains, with greater finesse:
On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men. . . .
Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame.
Before the conversation, Waas notes, Novak's story was that White House officials had given him Plame's name and encouraged him to write about it. After news of the investigation was broken on Sept. 26, Novak's story flipped. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," he said on Sept. 29.
Both men told investigators and the grand jury that in July 2003, Novak called Rove and asked him about an "unsubstantiated rumor" about Plame's identity, and Rove said he had heard the same thing.
According to Waas, the investigators are having a hard time swallowing the story. After all, why would a guy with 46 years' experience out a CIA operative based on himself and Rove hearing an "unsubstantiated rumor?"
LINK
Libby Told Grand Jury Cheney Spoke of Plame
Vice President May Be Called as Witness
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A01
Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador's newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then his chief of staff, to "get all the facts out" related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique.
In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But he said Cheney's interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts.
"The state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue," he said.
The prosecutor also left open the possibility that Cheney will be called as a witness at Libby's trial, scheduled to begin next year, and denied an assertion last week by Libby's lawyers that Cheney would not be called.
Fitzgerald was appointed in late 2003 to investigate the disclosure of Plame's name to the media after the CIA complained that it was an illegal act because she was an undercover officer. His probe has led to a series of disclosures about efforts by the White House to rebut Wilson's published critique, but no official has been directly charged with leaking Plame's name.
Instead, Libby was accused of making false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on his statements that he did not confirm Plame's employment at the CIA and alleged involvement in Wilson's trip when he was talking with two journalists. Libby has denied wrongdoing and said in court filings that he may have forgotten what he said to the journalists because of the press of other business.
Fitzgerald, in contrast, has sought to build a case that Libby was preoccupied with the task of rebutting Wilson's July 2003 column, which accused the White House of twisting intelligence to support its invasion of Iraq -- and that this preoccupation stemmed from Cheney's intense focus on Wilson's assertions. While yesterday's filing largely concerned a side issue -- whether Libby's attorneys are entitled to see more government documents -- it provided the first detailed look at what Libby told investigators about his interactions with Cheney on this issue.
According to the excerpts from testimony on March 5, 2004, Libby recalled that he and Cheney discussed Wilson's article on multiple occasions each day after it appeared. Cheney, Libby said, "often will cut out from a newspaper an article using a little penknife that he has" and "look at it, think about it."
That's what Cheney did with the column, Libby said, because Cheney saw it as attacking his credibility. "He wanted to get all the facts out about what he had or hadn't done, what the facts were or were not. He was very keen about that and said it repeatedly. Let's get everything out," Libby testified.
A previous court filing by Fitzgerald revealed that Cheney had annotated his copy of the column with this question about Wilson: "Did his wife send him on a junket?" Cheney's defense lawyers said in a subsequent filing that Libby had testified he never saw those annotations until the FBI showed him a copy. In Libby's actual testimony, as released by Fitzgerald, he said, "It's possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it."
An apparently key issue to be contested at trial is precisely when these conversations took place: Did they occur before or after Libby's discussions with reporters that included Plame's name? And did Libby have reason -- as his attorneys have asserted -- to forget some of what Cheney said about Plame and her employment at the CIA?
The grand jury excerpts record Libby as saying at one point that he did not recall Cheney asking about the Plame connection "early on . . . although he may well have." Libby also said that he did not recall such a discussion with Cheney before he heard Plame's name from reporter Tim Russert -- a conversation that Russert has disputed in his own testimony.
LINK
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A01
Vice President Cheney was personally angered by a former U.S. ambassador's newspaper column attacking a key rationale for the war in Iraq and repeatedly directed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then his chief of staff, to "get all the facts out" related to the critique, according to excerpts from Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony released late yesterday by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Libby also told the grand jury that Cheney raised as an issue that the former ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and that she allegedly played a role in sending him to investigate the Iraqi government's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons materials. That issue formed the basis of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's published critique.
In the court filing that included the formerly secret testimony, Fitzgerald did not assert that Cheney instructed Libby to tell reporters the name and role of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. But he said Cheney's interactions with Libby on that topic were a key part of the reason Libby allegedly made false statements to the FBI about his conversations with reporters around the time her name was disclosed in news accounts.
"The state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue," he said.
The prosecutor also left open the possibility that Cheney will be called as a witness at Libby's trial, scheduled to begin next year, and denied an assertion last week by Libby's lawyers that Cheney would not be called.
Fitzgerald was appointed in late 2003 to investigate the disclosure of Plame's name to the media after the CIA complained that it was an illegal act because she was an undercover officer. His probe has led to a series of disclosures about efforts by the White House to rebut Wilson's published critique, but no official has been directly charged with leaking Plame's name.
Instead, Libby was accused of making false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on his statements that he did not confirm Plame's employment at the CIA and alleged involvement in Wilson's trip when he was talking with two journalists. Libby has denied wrongdoing and said in court filings that he may have forgotten what he said to the journalists because of the press of other business.
Fitzgerald, in contrast, has sought to build a case that Libby was preoccupied with the task of rebutting Wilson's July 2003 column, which accused the White House of twisting intelligence to support its invasion of Iraq -- and that this preoccupation stemmed from Cheney's intense focus on Wilson's assertions. While yesterday's filing largely concerned a side issue -- whether Libby's attorneys are entitled to see more government documents -- it provided the first detailed look at what Libby told investigators about his interactions with Cheney on this issue.
According to the excerpts from testimony on March 5, 2004, Libby recalled that he and Cheney discussed Wilson's article on multiple occasions each day after it appeared. Cheney, Libby said, "often will cut out from a newspaper an article using a little penknife that he has" and "look at it, think about it."
That's what Cheney did with the column, Libby said, because Cheney saw it as attacking his credibility. "He wanted to get all the facts out about what he had or hadn't done, what the facts were or were not. He was very keen about that and said it repeatedly. Let's get everything out," Libby testified.
A previous court filing by Fitzgerald revealed that Cheney had annotated his copy of the column with this question about Wilson: "Did his wife send him on a junket?" Cheney's defense lawyers said in a subsequent filing that Libby had testified he never saw those annotations until the FBI showed him a copy. In Libby's actual testimony, as released by Fitzgerald, he said, "It's possible if it was sitting on his desk that, you know, my eye went across it."
An apparently key issue to be contested at trial is precisely when these conversations took place: Did they occur before or after Libby's discussions with reporters that included Plame's name? And did Libby have reason -- as his attorneys have asserted -- to forget some of what Cheney said about Plame and her employment at the CIA?
The grand jury excerpts record Libby as saying at one point that he did not recall Cheney asking about the Plame connection "early on . . . although he may well have." Libby also said that he did not recall such a discussion with Cheney before he heard Plame's name from reporter Tim Russert -- a conversation that Russert has disputed in his own testimony.
LINK
Multimillion dollar Abramoff client gave $50,000 to GOP after meeting with Bush, DeLay, Hastert and Lott
John Byrne and Ron Brynaert
Published: February 1, 2006
Abramoff firm gave $50,000 more to GOP congressional campaigns seven months after visits
Eleven million dollars can buy a lot of access in Washington. Especially if your lobbyist is Jack Abramoff.
Take Beningo Fitial, the current governor of the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific. He and his company, along with their trade lobby and funds doled out by the islands at his prodding, spent $11.5 million dollars lobbying Washington between 1995 and 2002. Now he says he wants his money back -- but he continues to maintain that Abramoff protected his island's interests.
Fitial—who became Speaker of the Marianas House after a coup organized by Abramoff’s associates and former aides of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay—was treated like a king.
In January 2001, Fitial enjoyed the inauguration of President George W. Bush.
Three months later, in April, Fitial met Bush a second time. He also met then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). Then he stopped in for visit with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
In other words—Abramoff seems to have arranged for a non-head of state for a tiny island in the Pacific to meet with the three most powerful men in the United States of America. But that’s not all: Fitial also met with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senate Interior Department Appropriations Chairman Conrad Burns (R-MT). Fitial appears in photographs with Burns and Delay -- enlarged from tiny thumbnails in his hometown paper -- at left.
That, it seems -- along with a spate of legislative victories keeping the islands from U.S. jurisdiction -- is the value of $11 million dollars. Fitial, not surprisingly, has not been terribly critical of Abramoff since he pled guilty to myriad criminal charges, including fraud, tax evasion and bribing members of Congress.
Six months after his visit to Capitol Hill, Fitial’s family’s companies donated $50,000 to the National Senatorial Campaign Committee.
The following month, Abramoff’s firm, at the direction of former press secretary to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) Michael Scanlon, doled out $50,000 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Scanlon secured Fitial's election by promising U.S. tax dollars as "bartering chips."
Fitial also chaired the islands' campaign to raise money for President Bush’s election. The AP reported last May that records show Abramoff’s Marianas lobbying team met members of the Bush Administration at least 195 times between February through November 2001.
A month before Bush was photographed with Fitial, he appointed Patrick Pizzella, a former Abramoff lieutenant, as Deputy Undersecretary of Labor. Pizzella worked the Marianas account with Abramoff; according to the New Republic, the former conservative lobbyist handpicked Pizzella for his Marianas lobbying team.
Asked about his meeting with Bush, Fitial told his local newspaper the Saipan Tribune, "This was a great opportunity to raise the CNMI's (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands) concerns to the president directly. Indeed, when the President discussed our military's readiness, I made it clear to him that the people of the CNMI support the military's presence and exercises in the Northern Mariana Islands."
“The president,” Fitial added, “said he was very pleased to know that the CNMI is supporting the military's presence in the islands."
Fitial also said he was pleased most by the fact that Lott recalled their meeting in a previous year. He said, "I think our efforts in Washington will continue to pay off for the CNMI people.”
And pay off they did: The Mariana’s $11.5 million, channeled through Abramoff, crushed numerous attempts to impose minimum wage and labor laws on the island territory. The tropical hotspot where Tom DeLay spent New Years in 1998 playing golf remains a haven for U.S. garment manufacturers—including Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and Gap—who enjoy the loosely enforced minimum wage of $3.05.
But you wouldn't know that from the labels: all products made in the Commonwealth can be stamped "Made in the USA," thanks to the U.S. Congress.
The Marianas have since accused Abramoff and his staff of overcharging the islands for some $1.2 million in unsupported expenses. The charges included travel, telephone, photocopy, computer research and outside-professional fees. Pizzella was not named by auditors, though was among the most traveled members of Abramoff’s group.
But this didn’t stop now-Governor Fitial from defending Abramoff just last week when asked if he regretted working with the lobbyist. “I will not comment about what Abramoff did outside of the commonwealth,” Fitial told the Marianas Variety Online. “But if you ask me what he did for the commonwealth, (Abramoff) protected our Covenant.”
Covenant is Fitial's political party. Fitial was elected governor of the Northern Marianas in November.
LINK
Published: February 1, 2006
Abramoff firm gave $50,000 more to GOP congressional campaigns seven months after visits
Eleven million dollars can buy a lot of access in Washington. Especially if your lobbyist is Jack Abramoff.
Take Beningo Fitial, the current governor of the Northern Marianas Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific. He and his company, along with their trade lobby and funds doled out by the islands at his prodding, spent $11.5 million dollars lobbying Washington between 1995 and 2002. Now he says he wants his money back -- but he continues to maintain that Abramoff protected his island's interests.
Fitial—who became Speaker of the Marianas House after a coup organized by Abramoff’s associates and former aides of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay—was treated like a king.
In January 2001, Fitial enjoyed the inauguration of President George W. Bush.
Three months later, in April, Fitial met Bush a second time. He also met then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). Then he stopped in for visit with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
In other words—Abramoff seems to have arranged for a non-head of state for a tiny island in the Pacific to meet with the three most powerful men in the United States of America. But that’s not all: Fitial also met with then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senate Interior Department Appropriations Chairman Conrad Burns (R-MT). Fitial appears in photographs with Burns and Delay -- enlarged from tiny thumbnails in his hometown paper -- at left.
That, it seems -- along with a spate of legislative victories keeping the islands from U.S. jurisdiction -- is the value of $11 million dollars. Fitial, not surprisingly, has not been terribly critical of Abramoff since he pled guilty to myriad criminal charges, including fraud, tax evasion and bribing members of Congress.
Six months after his visit to Capitol Hill, Fitial’s family’s companies donated $50,000 to the National Senatorial Campaign Committee.
The following month, Abramoff’s firm, at the direction of former press secretary to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) Michael Scanlon, doled out $50,000 to the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Scanlon secured Fitial's election by promising U.S. tax dollars as "bartering chips."
Fitial also chaired the islands' campaign to raise money for President Bush’s election. The AP reported last May that records show Abramoff’s Marianas lobbying team met members of the Bush Administration at least 195 times between February through November 2001.
A month before Bush was photographed with Fitial, he appointed Patrick Pizzella, a former Abramoff lieutenant, as Deputy Undersecretary of Labor. Pizzella worked the Marianas account with Abramoff; according to the New Republic, the former conservative lobbyist handpicked Pizzella for his Marianas lobbying team.
Asked about his meeting with Bush, Fitial told his local newspaper the Saipan Tribune, "This was a great opportunity to raise the CNMI's (Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands) concerns to the president directly. Indeed, when the President discussed our military's readiness, I made it clear to him that the people of the CNMI support the military's presence and exercises in the Northern Mariana Islands."
“The president,” Fitial added, “said he was very pleased to know that the CNMI is supporting the military's presence in the islands."
Fitial also said he was pleased most by the fact that Lott recalled their meeting in a previous year. He said, "I think our efforts in Washington will continue to pay off for the CNMI people.”
And pay off they did: The Mariana’s $11.5 million, channeled through Abramoff, crushed numerous attempts to impose minimum wage and labor laws on the island territory. The tropical hotspot where Tom DeLay spent New Years in 1998 playing golf remains a haven for U.S. garment manufacturers—including Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and Gap—who enjoy the loosely enforced minimum wage of $3.05.
But you wouldn't know that from the labels: all products made in the Commonwealth can be stamped "Made in the USA," thanks to the U.S. Congress.
The Marianas have since accused Abramoff and his staff of overcharging the islands for some $1.2 million in unsupported expenses. The charges included travel, telephone, photocopy, computer research and outside-professional fees. Pizzella was not named by auditors, though was among the most traveled members of Abramoff’s group.
But this didn’t stop now-Governor Fitial from defending Abramoff just last week when asked if he regretted working with the lobbyist. “I will not comment about what Abramoff did outside of the commonwealth,” Fitial told the Marianas Variety Online. “But if you ask me what he did for the commonwealth, (Abramoff) protected our Covenant.”
Covenant is Fitial's political party. Fitial was elected governor of the Northern Marianas in November.
LINK
ABC News Update on Hastert Story
May 24, 2006 10:21 PM
Brian Ross Reports:
Richard Esposito and Rhonda Schwartz contributed to this report.
Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.
Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was "absolutely untrue" and has demanded ABC News retract its story.
Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.
"You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said.
One focus involves a letter Hastert wrote in 2003 urging the Secretary of the Interior to block an Indian casino that would have competed with tribes represented by Abramoff.
The letter was written within days of a fund-raiser held for Hastert at Abramoff’s restaurant in Washington. Federal campaign records show more than $26,000 was raised at the time from Abramoff and his clients.
Hastert has denied doing anything unlawful and says he has a long history of opposing certain types of Indian casinos.
ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.
"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.
The investigation of Hastert’s relationship with Abramoff is in the early stages, according to these officials, and could eventually conclude that Abramoff’s information was unfounded.
Officials said the next logical investigative step would be for the FBI to seek a wide range of documents from the members of Congress named by Abramoff, including letters and business documents.
A spokesman for Hastert said the office had received no subpoenas or requests for documents.
Click here to read the statement issued by the Office of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
LINK
Brian Ross Reports:
Richard Esposito and Rhonda Schwartz contributed to this report.
Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.
Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was "absolutely untrue" and has demanded ABC News retract its story.
Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.
"You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said.
One focus involves a letter Hastert wrote in 2003 urging the Secretary of the Interior to block an Indian casino that would have competed with tribes represented by Abramoff.
The letter was written within days of a fund-raiser held for Hastert at Abramoff’s restaurant in Washington. Federal campaign records show more than $26,000 was raised at the time from Abramoff and his clients.
Hastert has denied doing anything unlawful and says he has a long history of opposing certain types of Indian casinos.
ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.
"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.
The investigation of Hastert’s relationship with Abramoff is in the early stages, according to these officials, and could eventually conclude that Abramoff’s information was unfounded.
Officials said the next logical investigative step would be for the FBI to seek a wide range of documents from the members of Congress named by Abramoff, including letters and business documents.
A spokesman for Hastert said the office had received no subpoenas or requests for documents.
Click here to read the statement issued by the Office of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
LINK
DOJ Statement
May 24, 2006 9:36 PM
Brian Ross Reports:
STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."
LINK
Brian Ross Reports:
STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."
LINK
Officials: Hastert "In the Mix" of Congressional Bribery Investigation
May 24, 2006 6:24 PM
Brian Ross Reports:
Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.
Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.
The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.
The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.
The day Abramoff was indicted, Hastert denied any unlawful connection and said he would donate to charity any campaign contribution he had received from Abramoff and his clients.
A spokesman for Speaker Hastert told ABC News, "We are not aware of this. The Speaker has a long history and a well-documented record of opposing Indian Reservation shopping for casino gaming purposes."
This week, Hastert has been outspoken in his criticism of the FBI for its raid on the office of another congressman under investigation, Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana.
"My opinion is that they took the wrong path, Hastert said of the FBI. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there."
LINK
Brian Ross Reports:
Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.
Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.
The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.
The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.
The day Abramoff was indicted, Hastert denied any unlawful connection and said he would donate to charity any campaign contribution he had received from Abramoff and his clients.
A spokesman for Speaker Hastert told ABC News, "We are not aware of this. The Speaker has a long history and a well-documented record of opposing Indian Reservation shopping for casino gaming purposes."
This week, Hastert has been outspoken in his criticism of the FBI for its raid on the office of another congressman under investigation, Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana.
"My opinion is that they took the wrong path, Hastert said of the FBI. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there."
LINK
Fitz Filing: Wants to Use Cheney Notes to Nail Libby About Russert
Patrick Fitzgerald has filed another response (pdf) to Scooter Libby's motion to compel documents. He includes portions of Libby's grand jury testimony from March 4 and March 24 as exhibits (pdf).
An AP report of tonight's filing is here, with a headline that Cheney may be called as a witness in Libby's trial. What Fitzgerald really said is, with respect to the issue of authenticating the copy of Joseph Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed with Cheney's hand-written notes on it (discussed here) that there are three ways to authenticate the article, one of which would be by calling Cheney as a witness. Fitz adds:
Contrary to defendant's assertion, the government has not represented that it does not intend to call the Vice President as a witness at trial. To the best of government's counsel's recollection, the government has not commented on whether it intends to call the Vice President as a witness.
Fitzgerald is clearly gung-ho to introduce Cheney's hand-annotated copy of Wilson's column into evidence at trial. Cheney had written on the article:
Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?
Fitz believes this blows a big hole in Libby's testimony that he learned of Wilson's wife working for the CIA from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11th. Libby acknowledged in the grand jury testimony that the handwriting looked like Cheney's and that while he had no recollection of having seen the copy of the article with Cheney's notes asking whether Wilson's wife sent him on the "junket" to Niger before FBI agents showed it to him, they had discussed it.
During his grand jury testimony, Libby puts the discussion with Cheney about the "junket" in late July or sometime before September, and not the week of July 6 to 12. Fitzgerald wants to use the article to show it is more likely the discussion occurred the first week of July, before Libby spoke with Tim Russert. Libby also told the grand jury that before he spoke with Russert, he didn't know Wilson had a wife. Libby says he forgot Cheney and others had told him this.
Defendant recalled discussing with the Vice President the issues reflected in the Vice President's handwritten notes but testified that he believed that they
did not discuss the specific issue of Wilson's wife's employment until after the July 14, 2003, publication of the Novak column, or at least not before the defendant's conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003
As to the import, Fitz writes:
....the state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue.
....Evidence that the defendant understood the concern that Mr. Wilson might have been "sen[t] . . . on a junket" by his wife shortly after July 6 would directly contradict defendant's testimony that he did not recall knowing on July 12 that Mr. Wilson had a wife and did not think at that time that the wife might have been involved in sending Mr. Wilson on the trip. See "Government's Response to Court's Inquiry Regarding News Articles the Government Intends to Offer as Evidence at Trial" at p. 6-7.
Libby also told the grand jury he doesn't recall discussing Wilson's wife working for the CIA with Cheney on the July 12 plane trip to Norfolk .
I'll be updating this with more thoughts shortly. Thanks to Tom Maguire for hosting the exhibits, his thoughts on tonight's filing are here.
Update: The point of this filing was not to establish a conspiracy between Libby and Cheney. It's about Libby's motion to compel Fitz to produce notes and files made by other witnesses like Mark Grossman and Ari Fleischer. Libby is arguing that since the government contends Cheney's state of mind is relevant, so is the state of mind of others whom the government has alleged discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. Fitz is resisting turning over those notes and files. Fitz writes that Libby contends:
In the same way that the government finds the views of the Vice President regarding Wilson and his trip relevant to its case, the defense finds the views of other government officials, such as former Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, regarding Ms. Wilson relevant to its case . . . . Just as Mr. Libby was interacting with the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson's charges, so was he also interacting with Mr. Grossman and other government officials and their respective agencies.
Fitz filed this pleading to dispute that contention:
This argument ignores the fact that the Vice President was the defendant's immediate superior with whom the defendant worked daily and closely, and from whom defendant received direction regarding the response to be made to the Wilson Op Ed. Understanding what conversations took place between the Vice President and the defendant during the week of July 7, 2003, is critical to determining relevant issues in the case: whether defendant recalled Wilson's wife's employment prior to the conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, and whether defendant thought it necessary or appropriate to disclose that fact to reporters that week. Understanding what other government officials knew or thought about Mr. Wilson's Op Ed simply is not.
I wouldn't read too much into the Fitz's comments about calling Cheney as a witness. As I said above, Fitz argues that Cheney's testimony is only one of three ways the Government can get the handwritten notes into evidence. It's far easier to use Rule 901 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. All Fitz has to do is call a lay witness who is familiar with Cheney's handwriting from having seen it in the past, prior to this investigation. After the witness states he or she is familiar with Cheney's handwriting and describes the basis for the familiarity, Fitz shows them the article with the notes and asks them if based on their familiarity, they believe it was written by Cheney.
Update: Don't miss Tim Grieves at Salon's War Room on tonight's filing. He not only has laid out all the important details and placed them in context -- succinctly-- he makes a strong case for why Fitzgerald would want to call Cheney as a witness. I'm still thinking Fitz will end up deciding his other witnesses and Cheney's notes are enough to carry the day. The jury will be instructed it can draw inferences from the evidence and to use its common sense. If Fitz is a good closer, and his record suggests he is, he can connect the dots for them in closing.
Then he wouldn't have to take the risk of calling Cheney, who might, after all, bolster Libby's version. If that happened, where would he be? Not to mention, maybe Cheney either will be a target or indicted by the time Libby goes to trial, in which case the 5th Amendment privilege makes Cheney's testimony essentially a moot issue.
But after reading Tim, I'm less sure.
LINK
An AP report of tonight's filing is here, with a headline that Cheney may be called as a witness in Libby's trial. What Fitzgerald really said is, with respect to the issue of authenticating the copy of Joseph Wilson's July 6 New York Times op-ed with Cheney's hand-written notes on it (discussed here) that there are three ways to authenticate the article, one of which would be by calling Cheney as a witness. Fitz adds:
Contrary to defendant's assertion, the government has not represented that it does not intend to call the Vice President as a witness at trial. To the best of government's counsel's recollection, the government has not commented on whether it intends to call the Vice President as a witness.
Fitzgerald is clearly gung-ho to introduce Cheney's hand-annotated copy of Wilson's column into evidence at trial. Cheney had written on the article:
Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?
Fitz believes this blows a big hole in Libby's testimony that he learned of Wilson's wife working for the CIA from Tim Russert on July 10 or 11th. Libby acknowledged in the grand jury testimony that the handwriting looked like Cheney's and that while he had no recollection of having seen the copy of the article with Cheney's notes asking whether Wilson's wife sent him on the "junket" to Niger before FBI agents showed it to him, they had discussed it.
During his grand jury testimony, Libby puts the discussion with Cheney about the "junket" in late July or sometime before September, and not the week of July 6 to 12. Fitzgerald wants to use the article to show it is more likely the discussion occurred the first week of July, before Libby spoke with Tim Russert. Libby also told the grand jury that before he spoke with Russert, he didn't know Wilson had a wife. Libby says he forgot Cheney and others had told him this.
Defendant recalled discussing with the Vice President the issues reflected in the Vice President's handwritten notes but testified that he believed that they
did not discuss the specific issue of Wilson's wife's employment until after the July 14, 2003, publication of the Novak column, or at least not before the defendant's conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003
As to the import, Fitz writes:
....the state of mind of the Vice President as communicated to defendant is directly relevant to the issue of whether defendant knowingly made false statements to federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learned about Ms. Wilson's employment and what he said to reporters regarding this issue.
....Evidence that the defendant understood the concern that Mr. Wilson might have been "sen[t] . . . on a junket" by his wife shortly after July 6 would directly contradict defendant's testimony that he did not recall knowing on July 12 that Mr. Wilson had a wife and did not think at that time that the wife might have been involved in sending Mr. Wilson on the trip. See "Government's Response to Court's Inquiry Regarding News Articles the Government Intends to Offer as Evidence at Trial" at p. 6-7.
Libby also told the grand jury he doesn't recall discussing Wilson's wife working for the CIA with Cheney on the July 12 plane trip to Norfolk .
I'll be updating this with more thoughts shortly. Thanks to Tom Maguire for hosting the exhibits, his thoughts on tonight's filing are here.
Update: The point of this filing was not to establish a conspiracy between Libby and Cheney. It's about Libby's motion to compel Fitz to produce notes and files made by other witnesses like Mark Grossman and Ari Fleischer. Libby is arguing that since the government contends Cheney's state of mind is relevant, so is the state of mind of others whom the government has alleged discussed Wilson's wife with Libby. Fitz is resisting turning over those notes and files. Fitz writes that Libby contends:
In the same way that the government finds the views of the Vice President regarding Wilson and his trip relevant to its case, the defense finds the views of other government officials, such as former Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, regarding Ms. Wilson relevant to its case . . . . Just as Mr. Libby was interacting with the Vice President regarding Mr. Wilson's charges, so was he also interacting with Mr. Grossman and other government officials and their respective agencies.
Fitz filed this pleading to dispute that contention:
This argument ignores the fact that the Vice President was the defendant's immediate superior with whom the defendant worked daily and closely, and from whom defendant received direction regarding the response to be made to the Wilson Op Ed. Understanding what conversations took place between the Vice President and the defendant during the week of July 7, 2003, is critical to determining relevant issues in the case: whether defendant recalled Wilson's wife's employment prior to the conversation with Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, and whether defendant thought it necessary or appropriate to disclose that fact to reporters that week. Understanding what other government officials knew or thought about Mr. Wilson's Op Ed simply is not.
I wouldn't read too much into the Fitz's comments about calling Cheney as a witness. As I said above, Fitz argues that Cheney's testimony is only one of three ways the Government can get the handwritten notes into evidence. It's far easier to use Rule 901 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. All Fitz has to do is call a lay witness who is familiar with Cheney's handwriting from having seen it in the past, prior to this investigation. After the witness states he or she is familiar with Cheney's handwriting and describes the basis for the familiarity, Fitz shows them the article with the notes and asks them if based on their familiarity, they believe it was written by Cheney.
Update: Don't miss Tim Grieves at Salon's War Room on tonight's filing. He not only has laid out all the important details and placed them in context -- succinctly-- he makes a strong case for why Fitzgerald would want to call Cheney as a witness. I'm still thinking Fitz will end up deciding his other witnesses and Cheney's notes are enough to carry the day. The jury will be instructed it can draw inferences from the evidence and to use its common sense. If Fitz is a good closer, and his record suggests he is, he can connect the dots for them in closing.
Then he wouldn't have to take the risk of calling Cheney, who might, after all, bolster Libby's version. If that happened, where would he be? Not to mention, maybe Cheney either will be a target or indicted by the time Libby goes to trial, in which case the 5th Amendment privilege makes Cheney's testimony essentially a moot issue.
But after reading Tim, I'm less sure.
LINK
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Fitzgerald Just Punishing Libby in Hearings
by BooMan
Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 03:15:51 PM EST
If Scooter Libby v. Patrick Fitzgerald were a boxing match, Libby's corner would ask the referee to stop it. Everytime they force Fitz to respond to one of their pleas, he just eviscerates them and sneaks damaging information in the public arena. Go below the fold to see Fitz at work. It's amazing, and I wish all wingnuts could be forced to listen to Fitz's version of events. He's just dripping with contempt for Libby. It's clear he thinks he is a scumbag. I especially love his citation of the trial of Iran-Contra operator Richard Secord. That was a good inside joke. Check it out.
Scooter Libby Patrick Fitzgerald
In an attempt to recast the relevant issues at trial, defendant claims he is entitled to correct the “distorted picture of the relevant events” presented in the indictment, including the “exaggerati[on of] the importance government officials, including [defendant], attributed to Ms. Wilson’s employment status prior to July 14, 2003,” and to present “a more complete and accurate narrative” of the alleged events, and to establish that defendant “and other government officials” viewed Ms. Wilson’s identity as at most a “peripheral issue.” Memo. at 27. Defendant argues that information regarding bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the “sixteen words” will help the jury appreciate how defendant “may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable.” Memo. at 3-4.
Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. Accordingly, it is clear that documents from outside the OVP are not sought to establish “context” but rather to provide an irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case.
Moreover, evidence from the CIA, State Department, and NSC about whether persons working there thought the issue of Ms. Wilson’s employment was “peripheral” will not place in context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the relevant time, nor explain whether defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the topic in which he participated. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ 9.
The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003.
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism. The context for defendant’s disclosures in the course of defending the Office of the Vice President will not be fleshed out in any files of CIA or State Department or NSC employees that might reflect what they thought. Put slightly differently, the thoughts and impressions of CIA, State Department, and NSC employees, absent any evidence that these thoughts and impressions were conveyed to defendant, simply cannot shed light on defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged criminal conduct. See United States v. Secord, 726 F.Supp. 845, 848-49 (D.D.C. 1989) (“The subjective state of mind which Defendant Secord wishes to prove could have arisen solely from conversations in which he participated, correspondence which he himself read, meetings which he himself attended. . . . The point is simply that Defendant’s state of mind can come only from what he hears or sees. Defendant is entitled to discover materials which evidence his personal knowledge about or belief in the legality of the Enterprise.”).
Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson.
During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President. Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. Defendant testified that he did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife with reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Nor could such documents explain defendant’s testimony disclaiming having discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with various other government officials prior to July 10, 2003, or his testimony that he was “taken aback” when journalist Tim Russert asked about Ms. Wilson’s employment with the CIA on July 12, 2003. Accordingly, none of the documents requested by defendant could possibly support the defense that the specific perjury specifications are mere “snippets” of conversation he “may have misremembered.”
And questions? Read the whole thing here (.pdf).
LINK
Tue May 23rd, 2006 at 03:15:51 PM EST
If Scooter Libby v. Patrick Fitzgerald were a boxing match, Libby's corner would ask the referee to stop it. Everytime they force Fitz to respond to one of their pleas, he just eviscerates them and sneaks damaging information in the public arena. Go below the fold to see Fitz at work. It's amazing, and I wish all wingnuts could be forced to listen to Fitz's version of events. He's just dripping with contempt for Libby. It's clear he thinks he is a scumbag. I especially love his citation of the trial of Iran-Contra operator Richard Secord. That was a good inside joke. Check it out.
Scooter Libby Patrick Fitzgerald
In an attempt to recast the relevant issues at trial, defendant claims he is entitled to correct the “distorted picture of the relevant events” presented in the indictment, including the “exaggerati[on of] the importance government officials, including [defendant], attributed to Ms. Wilson’s employment status prior to July 14, 2003,” and to present “a more complete and accurate narrative” of the alleged events, and to establish that defendant “and other government officials” viewed Ms. Wilson’s identity as at most a “peripheral issue.” Memo. at 27. Defendant argues that information regarding bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the “sixteen words” will help the jury appreciate how defendant “may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of conversation the government alleges were so memorable.” Memo. at 3-4.
Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. Accordingly, it is clear that documents from outside the OVP are not sought to establish “context” but rather to provide an irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case.
Moreover, evidence from the CIA, State Department, and NSC about whether persons working there thought the issue of Ms. Wilson’s employment was “peripheral” will not place in context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the relevant time, nor explain whether defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the topic in which he participated. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger, the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ 9.
The evidence will show that the July 6, 2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week following July 7, 2003.
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And, in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson’s wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the Vice President had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism. The context for defendant’s disclosures in the course of defending the Office of the Vice President will not be fleshed out in any files of CIA or State Department or NSC employees that might reflect what they thought. Put slightly differently, the thoughts and impressions of CIA, State Department, and NSC employees, absent any evidence that these thoughts and impressions were conveyed to defendant, simply cannot shed light on defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged criminal conduct. See United States v. Secord, 726 F.Supp. 845, 848-49 (D.D.C. 1989) (“The subjective state of mind which Defendant Secord wishes to prove could have arisen solely from conversations in which he participated, correspondence which he himself read, meetings which he himself attended. . . . The point is simply that Defendant’s state of mind can come only from what he hears or sees. Defendant is entitled to discover materials which evidence his personal knowledge about or belief in the legality of the Enterprise.”).
Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson.
During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President. Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. Defendant testified that he did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife with reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003 and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Nor could such documents explain defendant’s testimony disclaiming having discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with various other government officials prior to July 10, 2003, or his testimony that he was “taken aback” when journalist Tim Russert asked about Ms. Wilson’s employment with the CIA on July 12, 2003. Accordingly, none of the documents requested by defendant could possibly support the defense that the specific perjury specifications are mere “snippets” of conversation he “may have misremembered.”
And questions? Read the whole thing here (.pdf).
LINK
2 in CIA to testify Libby lied on leak
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Two top CIA officials will bolster prosecutors' charge that Vice President Cheney's chief aide lied to them, court papers show.
Prosecutors say disgraced Cheney chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby learned CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity from, among others, agency officials who will be called to testify at his trial for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.
The U.S. alleges he learned about Plame from one of the CIA officials when he went after dirt on her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson shattered a pillar of President Bush's rationale for war - that Iraq was seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist Robert Novak blew her cover in July 2003, prosecutors charge.
Libby has said journalists told him about Plame - not Cheney or the six witnesses named so far by prosecutors.
Until recently, the CIA officials' identities were kept secret by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who did not name them in Libby's October indictment.
But subsequent documents allege Libby asked top CIA official Robert Grenier on June 11 why the agency sent Wilson to Niger to see if Iraq tried to buy uranium. Grenier replied that Plame was an agent and "believed responsible" for arranging her husband's trip.
The other official was Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer whom Libby complained to about the Wilson trip on June 14, court files allege.
Grenier, the CIA's station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, helped stage the successful U.S. attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
He then joined the CIA's Iraq Issue Group, hatching operational plans for invading Iraq.
"Bob had to go to lots of White House meetings in the runup to the war," said one colleague.
The source expressed surprise that Grenier would have discussed Plame with Libby.
This year, as CIA Counterterrorist Center chief, Grenier oversaw the failed missile strike aimed at Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Shortly afterward, Grenier was demoted.
But Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said Grenier lost his job over his "concerns about aggressive interrogations [of terrorist detainees] at secret sites."
LINK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Two top CIA officials will bolster prosecutors' charge that Vice President Cheney's chief aide lied to them, court papers show.
Prosecutors say disgraced Cheney chief of staff Lewis (Scooter) Libby learned CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity from, among others, agency officials who will be called to testify at his trial for perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.
The U.S. alleges he learned about Plame from one of the CIA officials when he went after dirt on her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson shattered a pillar of President Bush's rationale for war - that Iraq was seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist Robert Novak blew her cover in July 2003, prosecutors charge.
Libby has said journalists told him about Plame - not Cheney or the six witnesses named so far by prosecutors.
Until recently, the CIA officials' identities were kept secret by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who did not name them in Libby's October indictment.
But subsequent documents allege Libby asked top CIA official Robert Grenier on June 11 why the agency sent Wilson to Niger to see if Iraq tried to buy uranium. Grenier replied that Plame was an agent and "believed responsible" for arranging her husband's trip.
The other official was Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer whom Libby complained to about the Wilson trip on June 14, court files allege.
Grenier, the CIA's station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, helped stage the successful U.S. attack on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
He then joined the CIA's Iraq Issue Group, hatching operational plans for invading Iraq.
"Bob had to go to lots of White House meetings in the runup to the war," said one colleague.
The source expressed surprise that Grenier would have discussed Plame with Libby.
This year, as CIA Counterterrorist Center chief, Grenier oversaw the failed missile strike aimed at Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Shortly afterward, Grenier was demoted.
But Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said Grenier lost his job over his "concerns about aggressive interrogations [of terrorist detainees] at secret sites."
LINK
Monday, May 22, 2006
MSNBC: Rove's legal team expects decision 'at any time'
RAW STORY
Published: Monday May 22, 2006
MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat.
Meanwhile, Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told TalkLeft, a progressive legal blog, the timing is still unknown.
"We have no expectation on timing anymore," Corallo said.
Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, added that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever."
"As a defense lawyer," Luskin told TalkLeft, "you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."
RAW STORY acquired a transcript of the MSNBC report, which follows.
#
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: Welcome back to Hardball. In the CIA leak case against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby, there are new documents tonight that are raising questions about the possible role of Cheney himself in the actions that led to the outing of a CIA operative. Libby has filed legal pleadings in court saying that he never saw a key document with the Vice President's handwriting on it. If Libby didn't see that document, who did?
Hardball correspondent David Shuster reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Former federal prosecutors say it's a position that increases the odds Vice President Cheney will be called as a prosecution witness in the perjury case against his former chief of staff Scooter Libby.
In the latest pre-trial documents, Libby argues he does not remember seeing Cheney's handwritten notes about the CIA's Valerie Wilson on a column by her husband, administration critic Joe Wilson. Quote, "On Libby's first day of grand jury testimony, when asked if he recalled this particular document with the Vice President, Mr. Libby testified 'I don't recall that... I subsequently learned that the Vice President had such an article from the FBI agents who talked to me.'"
Libby also denied disclosing Valerie Wilson's identity to reporters. And for that testimony, he is facing charges of perjury.
In his latest filing, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald suggests the Cheney notes are important because they show Libby's boss was personally focused on Valerie Wilson's role at the CIA. Fitzgerald writes about quote, "The level of attention being paid by the defendant and others to responding to Mr. Wilson."
But Libby's legal team says quote, "these arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgment that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important to trial." And Libby argues he is quote, "entitled to any documents that mention Ms. Wilson that are contained in the files of other government officials."
Still, Libby's inability to remember the Cheney notes raises questions. If the chief of his office did not see the Vice President's notes, who were they intended for? Conversations between Cheney and other white house officials have remained under seal.
Meanwhile, legal experts say the latest Libby filing could be telling for what the defense does not argue. Libby does not challenge the prosecution statement that on the day columnist Robert Novak first disclosed Valerie Wilson's identity, a quote "CIA official discussed in the defendant's presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column. This evidence directly contradicts the defense position."
A former federal prosecutor says the Government's point about Libby is simple.
SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "He knew he may have violated the law. And that gave him motive, according to the government, to lie to the grand jury and before that to lie to the FBI."
SHUSTER: Prosecution documents indicate Valerie Wilson's classified status will be a key issue in the government's case. Prosecutors will attempt to show Libby knew about Wilson's status before talking with reporters. The defense will try and shore up Libby's claim of having learned about Wilson from reporters by seeking testimony, according to defense documents, from CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.
Both sides in the Libby case have several weeks before they will file the next set of pleadings. And that could help free up prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his staff to focus on one key unresolved issue in the overall investigation -- the status of presidential advisor Karl Rove.
It's now been 26 days since Rove testified to the grand jury for the 5th time. Defense lawyers say prosecutors remain focused on Rove's claim of a bad memory regarding a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Rove's legal team and former prosecutors tracking the investigation expect Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision at any time.
SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "Right now is when we would expect the meetings to be wrapped up with his own staff, for him to make the preliminary decision, for him to reach out to Rove's counsel to have the final conversation, or to notify him he is not going forward or to notify him we are going to indict."
SHUSTER: (on-camera) "The CIA leak grand jury is scheduled to meet again this Wednesday. As for Scooter Libby, whose lawyers are focusing on his criminal trial, one broad issue they've noted will not be part of the case. Libby's legal team says that in front of a jury drawn from residents of liberal Washington, D.C., defending the Bush administration's case for war would be foolish and self destructive, regardless of whether the trial features testimony from Vice President Cheney. I'm David Shuster, for Hardball, in Washington.
LINK
Published: Monday May 22, 2006
MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat.
Meanwhile, Rove spokesman Mark Corallo told TalkLeft, a progressive legal blog, the timing is still unknown.
"We have no expectation on timing anymore," Corallo said.
Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, added that "there has never been any discussion of any plea under any circumstances whatsoever."
"As a defense lawyer," Luskin told TalkLeft, "you'll understand that if a prosecutor hasn't figured out whether or not he thinks a charge is appropriate, plea discussions are a bit premature."
RAW STORY acquired a transcript of the MSNBC report, which follows.
#
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: Welcome back to Hardball. In the CIA leak case against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby, there are new documents tonight that are raising questions about the possible role of Cheney himself in the actions that led to the outing of a CIA operative. Libby has filed legal pleadings in court saying that he never saw a key document with the Vice President's handwriting on it. If Libby didn't see that document, who did?
Hardball correspondent David Shuster reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Former federal prosecutors say it's a position that increases the odds Vice President Cheney will be called as a prosecution witness in the perjury case against his former chief of staff Scooter Libby.
In the latest pre-trial documents, Libby argues he does not remember seeing Cheney's handwritten notes about the CIA's Valerie Wilson on a column by her husband, administration critic Joe Wilson. Quote, "On Libby's first day of grand jury testimony, when asked if he recalled this particular document with the Vice President, Mr. Libby testified 'I don't recall that... I subsequently learned that the Vice President had such an article from the FBI agents who talked to me.'"
Libby also denied disclosing Valerie Wilson's identity to reporters. And for that testimony, he is facing charges of perjury.
In his latest filing, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald suggests the Cheney notes are important because they show Libby's boss was personally focused on Valerie Wilson's role at the CIA. Fitzgerald writes about quote, "The level of attention being paid by the defendant and others to responding to Mr. Wilson."
But Libby's legal team says quote, "these arguments are tantamount to an acknowledgment that the state of mind of witnesses other than Mr. Libby will be important to trial." And Libby argues he is quote, "entitled to any documents that mention Ms. Wilson that are contained in the files of other government officials."
Still, Libby's inability to remember the Cheney notes raises questions. If the chief of his office did not see the Vice President's notes, who were they intended for? Conversations between Cheney and other white house officials have remained under seal.
Meanwhile, legal experts say the latest Libby filing could be telling for what the defense does not argue. Libby does not challenge the prosecution statement that on the day columnist Robert Novak first disclosed Valerie Wilson's identity, a quote "CIA official discussed in the defendant's presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column. This evidence directly contradicts the defense position."
A former federal prosecutor says the Government's point about Libby is simple.
SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "He knew he may have violated the law. And that gave him motive, according to the government, to lie to the grand jury and before that to lie to the FBI."
SHUSTER: Prosecution documents indicate Valerie Wilson's classified status will be a key issue in the government's case. Prosecutors will attempt to show Libby knew about Wilson's status before talking with reporters. The defense will try and shore up Libby's claim of having learned about Wilson from reporters by seeking testimony, according to defense documents, from CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.
Both sides in the Libby case have several weeks before they will file the next set of pleadings. And that could help free up prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his staff to focus on one key unresolved issue in the overall investigation -- the status of presidential advisor Karl Rove.
It's now been 26 days since Rove testified to the grand jury for the 5th time. Defense lawyers say prosecutors remain focused on Rove's claim of a bad memory regarding a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Rove's legal team and former prosecutors tracking the investigation expect Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision at any time.
SCOTT FREDERICKSEN, former federal prosecutor: "Right now is when we would expect the meetings to be wrapped up with his own staff, for him to make the preliminary decision, for him to reach out to Rove's counsel to have the final conversation, or to notify him he is not going forward or to notify him we are going to indict."
SHUSTER: (on-camera) "The CIA leak grand jury is scheduled to meet again this Wednesday. As for Scooter Libby, whose lawyers are focusing on his criminal trial, one broad issue they've noted will not be part of the case. Libby's legal team says that in front of a jury drawn from residents of liberal Washington, D.C., defending the Bush administration's case for war would be foolish and self destructive, regardless of whether the trial features testimony from Vice President Cheney. I'm David Shuster, for Hardball, in Washington.
LINK
Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two
Marc Ash, editor of Truthout, the publication for which Jason Leopold writes, has a detailed new article about what their sources told them regarding Karl Rove's purported Indictment and about activity Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, lawyers for Karl Rove. [Added: Truthout servers are now overloaded, probably due to a link from Drudge. I have temporarily reposted today's article at the bottom of this post.]
I have just gotten off the phone with Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, who provided me with his response to the below quoted portions of the article. (He was at an event making cotton candy with his kids and only saw my email with the quotes, not the entire article.)
First, the Truthout article: Not only is Truthout not backing down, they are flat-out calling Rove spokesman Marc Corallo and Rove Lawyer Robert Luskin's denial false.
Truthout adds a new twist: Rove "may" be cooperating and becoming a witness for Fitzgerald and Cheney may be in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
Now for Mr. Carallo's response:
1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."
2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.
3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.
4. Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."
5. There have been no discussions of any deals whatsoever between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team. Not once in all the years this has been going on.
6. Truthout does not have sources in position to know what they claim they were told. There is no one at Patton Boggs who provided this information. It's laughable. If any sources exist, they have lied to Truthout.
7. Corallo did give Marc Ash's phone number to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."
LINK
I have just gotten off the phone with Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, who provided me with his response to the below quoted portions of the article. (He was at an event making cotton candy with his kids and only saw my email with the quotes, not the entire article.)
First, the Truthout article: Not only is Truthout not backing down, they are flat-out calling Rove spokesman Marc Corallo and Rove Lawyer Robert Luskin's denial false.
Truthout adds a new twist: Rove "may" be cooperating and becoming a witness for Fitzgerald and Cheney may be in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
Now for Mr. Carallo's response:
1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."
2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.
3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.
4. Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."
5. There have been no discussions of any deals whatsoever between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team. Not once in all the years this has been going on.
6. Truthout does not have sources in position to know what they claim they were told. There is no one at Patton Boggs who provided this information. It's laughable. If any sources exist, they have lied to Truthout.
7. Corallo did give Marc Ash's phone number to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."
LINK
Abramoff E-Mails to Get First Courtroom Airing in Safavian Case
By Kristin Jensen
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government's probe of influence peddling linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, based largely on a trail of e-mails, gets its first courtroom test this week in the case of former White House official David Safavian.
Safavian, 38, goes on trial in a Washington courtroom on charges he concealed Abramoff's interest in government business when seeking permission to accept airfare for a Scotland golf trip from the lobbyist in 2002. Safavian is also accused of obstructing inquiries into the matter. He pleaded not guilty.
Abramoff has pled guilty to conspiracy to corrupt lawmakers and is cooperating with prosecutors. The Justice Department has also secured guilty pleas from three former congressional aides who worked for Republican Representatives Tom DeLay of Texas and Bob Ney of Ohio.
``This may be one of the rare times where the Justice Department has to lay out its whole case publicly,'' said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who runs the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ``It may be the only one where they ever go to trial.''
Abramoff, 47, promises to figure prominently in the trial though he may not actually testify. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted a request by prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg and Nathaniel Edmonds to permit hundreds of e-mails written or received by Abramoff to be admitted as evidence. The judge excluded just 14 of the government's exhibits.
By relying on e-mails and not calling Abramoff to testify, prosecutors might be able to keep defense lawyer Barbara Van Gelder from painting him as an unreliable witness, former prosecutors said. That, in turn, would probably help the government win more guilty pleas in its corruption investigation.
`Golden Egg'
``He's the goose that lays the golden egg for prosecutors,'' said Greg Wallance, a former federal prosecutor who now works at the New York law firm Kaye Scholer. ``You don't want to put him on the block and give all the other defense attorneys for the targets and defendants a roadmap.''
Safavian is a former colleague of Abramoff's at the lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds in Washington. At the time of the golf trip, he was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, which oversees government property. He later became the top procurement officer in the White House Office of Management and Budget. He resigned in September.
Almost immediately after taking the GSA post, Safavian started receiving e-mails from Abramoff about government properties such as the Old Post Office building in Washington, according to government documents. Sprinkled throughout Abramoff's requests to Safavian for inside information were offers for tickets to sports events, meals at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant and talk about planning racquetball games.
``There's no conspiracy here. It's a friendship,'' Van Gelder said.
Ethics Office
At the heart of the government's case is an e-mail Safavian sent to the GSA ethics office in 2002 asking whether he could accept airfare for the golf trip. He identified Abramoff as a friend and lobbyist ``but one that has no business before GSA (he does all of his work on Capitol Hill).''
One of the main questions for the jury will be the meaning of ``business.'' Van Gelder contends that there were no false statements in Safavian's e-mail because Abramoff didn't have any contracts or bids pending with the GSA.
Prosecutors will try to convince the jury that Safavian was hiding the help he routinely gave to Abramoff. Friedman ruled that they can present evidence that Safavian told Abramoff in 2003 that units of Bermuda-based Tyco International Inc., then a client of Abramoff's, were about to be banned from receiving federal contracts.
Jury Selection
Jury selection begins today, and lawyers expect the trial to last about seven days. Prosecutors said they will probably call as a witness Neil Volz, 35, former chief of staff to Ney. Both Ney and Volz, who later went to work for Abramoff, were on the 2002 golf trip. Volz pleaded guilty on May 8 to attempting to corrupt public officials.
Court documents filed with plea agreements by Volz, Abramoff and two former DeLay aides, Michael Scanlon, 35, and Tony Rudy, 39, say Ney accepted ``things of value'' from Abramoff's team in return for official action. Ney and DeLay, who is resigning from Congress, have denied wrongdoing.
Van Gelder said she doesn't plan to call Ney to the witness stand. She told Friedman last week that she was having trouble getting some witnesses to respond to subpoenas because they feared they are targets in the larger Abramoff probe. She wouldn't give any details after the court hearing.
While Safavian's case differs from those of lawmakers who are under scrutiny, it will be closely watched by anyone who might be connected to the government's investigation, former prosecutors said. A government defeat could complicate negotiations for other guilty pleas, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor.
``An acquittal will surely be dispiriting to the prosecutors pursuing other targets,'' Gillers said.
LINK
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government's probe of influence peddling linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, based largely on a trail of e-mails, gets its first courtroom test this week in the case of former White House official David Safavian.
Safavian, 38, goes on trial in a Washington courtroom on charges he concealed Abramoff's interest in government business when seeking permission to accept airfare for a Scotland golf trip from the lobbyist in 2002. Safavian is also accused of obstructing inquiries into the matter. He pleaded not guilty.
Abramoff has pled guilty to conspiracy to corrupt lawmakers and is cooperating with prosecutors. The Justice Department has also secured guilty pleas from three former congressional aides who worked for Republican Representatives Tom DeLay of Texas and Bob Ney of Ohio.
``This may be one of the rare times where the Justice Department has to lay out its whole case publicly,'' said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who runs the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ``It may be the only one where they ever go to trial.''
Abramoff, 47, promises to figure prominently in the trial though he may not actually testify. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted a request by prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg and Nathaniel Edmonds to permit hundreds of e-mails written or received by Abramoff to be admitted as evidence. The judge excluded just 14 of the government's exhibits.
By relying on e-mails and not calling Abramoff to testify, prosecutors might be able to keep defense lawyer Barbara Van Gelder from painting him as an unreliable witness, former prosecutors said. That, in turn, would probably help the government win more guilty pleas in its corruption investigation.
`Golden Egg'
``He's the goose that lays the golden egg for prosecutors,'' said Greg Wallance, a former federal prosecutor who now works at the New York law firm Kaye Scholer. ``You don't want to put him on the block and give all the other defense attorneys for the targets and defendants a roadmap.''
Safavian is a former colleague of Abramoff's at the lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds in Washington. At the time of the golf trip, he was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, which oversees government property. He later became the top procurement officer in the White House Office of Management and Budget. He resigned in September.
Almost immediately after taking the GSA post, Safavian started receiving e-mails from Abramoff about government properties such as the Old Post Office building in Washington, according to government documents. Sprinkled throughout Abramoff's requests to Safavian for inside information were offers for tickets to sports events, meals at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant and talk about planning racquetball games.
``There's no conspiracy here. It's a friendship,'' Van Gelder said.
Ethics Office
At the heart of the government's case is an e-mail Safavian sent to the GSA ethics office in 2002 asking whether he could accept airfare for the golf trip. He identified Abramoff as a friend and lobbyist ``but one that has no business before GSA (he does all of his work on Capitol Hill).''
One of the main questions for the jury will be the meaning of ``business.'' Van Gelder contends that there were no false statements in Safavian's e-mail because Abramoff didn't have any contracts or bids pending with the GSA.
Prosecutors will try to convince the jury that Safavian was hiding the help he routinely gave to Abramoff. Friedman ruled that they can present evidence that Safavian told Abramoff in 2003 that units of Bermuda-based Tyco International Inc., then a client of Abramoff's, were about to be banned from receiving federal contracts.
Jury Selection
Jury selection begins today, and lawyers expect the trial to last about seven days. Prosecutors said they will probably call as a witness Neil Volz, 35, former chief of staff to Ney. Both Ney and Volz, who later went to work for Abramoff, were on the 2002 golf trip. Volz pleaded guilty on May 8 to attempting to corrupt public officials.
Court documents filed with plea agreements by Volz, Abramoff and two former DeLay aides, Michael Scanlon, 35, and Tony Rudy, 39, say Ney accepted ``things of value'' from Abramoff's team in return for official action. Ney and DeLay, who is resigning from Congress, have denied wrongdoing.
Van Gelder said she doesn't plan to call Ney to the witness stand. She told Friedman last week that she was having trouble getting some witnesses to respond to subpoenas because they feared they are targets in the larger Abramoff probe. She wouldn't give any details after the court hearing.
While Safavian's case differs from those of lawmakers who are under scrutiny, it will be closely watched by anyone who might be connected to the government's investigation, former prosecutors said. A government defeat could complicate negotiations for other guilty pleas, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor.
``An acquittal will surely be dispiriting to the prosecutors pursuing other targets,'' Gillers said.
LINK
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Libby Prosecutor Focuses on CIA Officer's Status
Filings Say Ex-Cheney Aide Knew That Plame Was Classified, Giving Him Reason to Lie to Grand Jury
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 22, 2006; Page A04
The classified status of the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame will be a key element in any trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, according to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald has said that at trial he plans to show that Libby knew Plame's employment at the CIA was classified and that he lied to the grand jury when he said he had learned from NBC News's Tim Russert that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the agency.
Libby's lawyers have said their client did not know that Plame's job at the CIA was classified, and therefore he had no reason to remember conversations about her or lie about them to the grand jury.
When Libby testified before the grand jury on March 5, 2004, he said, according to the government's indictment: "Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he [Russert] said, yeah -- yes all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that."
At that same grand jury appearance, Libby was asked about a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in which he said reporters were the source of his information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
"I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information was coming in from reporters," Libby told the grand jury, according to the indictment.
The indictment said Russert never disclosed anything about Plame in his conversation with Libby. Instead, prosecutors say, Libby learned about Plame's CIA employment in June 2003 from Cheney, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and at least one senior CIA official, according to court papers.
At last week's court argument on pretrial motions, Fitzgerald said Libby had a "motive to lie" to the grand jury. By "attributing to a reporter" his information about Plame's CIA status and emphasizing that he was "passing on" scuttlebutt but "didn't know if it were true," the prosecutor said, Libby in his testimony was deliberately casting his actions as "a non-crime" in a way that "looks much more innocent than passing on what you know to be classified."
To support his case, Fitzgerald disclosed that at some time after Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified Plame as a CIA "operative," Libby was part of a conversation with a CIA official and one other Cheney employee who is not identified in court papers. The CIA official discussed "the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees," according to a May 12 court filing by the government.
At the oral argument that same day, Fitzgerald, referring to the conversation, described the CIA official as a witness who described to Libby "and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson."
That conversation, Fitzgerald added, "goes directly to his [Libby's] state of mind as to . . . there [being] a motive to lie."
In his May 12 filing, Fitzgerald said that same conversation provides "evidence [that] directly contradicts the defense position that the defendant had no motive to lie because at the time of his [FBI] interview and [grand jury] testimony the defendant [Libby] thought that neither he nor anyone else had done anything wrong."
To help counter that contention, Libby's lawyers, in their May 12 court filing, identify former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow as a potential witness in the case, saying he was the government official who disclosed Plame's "employment status," probably in June 2003, to Cheney spokeswoman Cathie Martin, who then passed it on to Libby.
"Mr. Harlow may be called to testify about that conversation and about whether he told her that such information was secret," Libby's attorneys wrote in their filing. "Such testimony would support defense's contention that Ms. Martin did not tell Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified, which would help the defense to contest the government's argument that Mr. Libby should have known such information was classified," they wrote.
LINK
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 22, 2006; Page A04
The classified status of the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame will be a key element in any trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, according to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald has said that at trial he plans to show that Libby knew Plame's employment at the CIA was classified and that he lied to the grand jury when he said he had learned from NBC News's Tim Russert that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the agency.
Libby's lawyers have said their client did not know that Plame's job at the CIA was classified, and therefore he had no reason to remember conversations about her or lie about them to the grand jury.
When Libby testified before the grand jury on March 5, 2004, he said, according to the government's indictment: "Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he [Russert] said, yeah -- yes all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that."
At that same grand jury appearance, Libby was asked about a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in which he said reporters were the source of his information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
"I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was -- all I had was this information was coming in from reporters," Libby told the grand jury, according to the indictment.
The indictment said Russert never disclosed anything about Plame in his conversation with Libby. Instead, prosecutors say, Libby learned about Plame's CIA employment in June 2003 from Cheney, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and at least one senior CIA official, according to court papers.
At last week's court argument on pretrial motions, Fitzgerald said Libby had a "motive to lie" to the grand jury. By "attributing to a reporter" his information about Plame's CIA status and emphasizing that he was "passing on" scuttlebutt but "didn't know if it were true," the prosecutor said, Libby in his testimony was deliberately casting his actions as "a non-crime" in a way that "looks much more innocent than passing on what you know to be classified."
To support his case, Fitzgerald disclosed that at some time after Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified Plame as a CIA "operative," Libby was part of a conversation with a CIA official and one other Cheney employee who is not identified in court papers. The CIA official discussed "the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees," according to a May 12 court filing by the government.
At the oral argument that same day, Fitzgerald, referring to the conversation, described the CIA official as a witness who described to Libby "and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson."
That conversation, Fitzgerald added, "goes directly to his [Libby's] state of mind as to . . . there [being] a motive to lie."
In his May 12 filing, Fitzgerald said that same conversation provides "evidence [that] directly contradicts the defense position that the defendant had no motive to lie because at the time of his [FBI] interview and [grand jury] testimony the defendant [Libby] thought that neither he nor anyone else had done anything wrong."
To help counter that contention, Libby's lawyers, in their May 12 court filing, identify former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow as a potential witness in the case, saying he was the government official who disclosed Plame's "employment status," probably in June 2003, to Cheney spokeswoman Cathie Martin, who then passed it on to Libby.
"Mr. Harlow may be called to testify about that conversation and about whether he told her that such information was secret," Libby's attorneys wrote in their filing. "Such testimony would support defense's contention that Ms. Martin did not tell Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified, which would help the defense to contest the government's argument that Mr. Libby should have known such information was classified," they wrote.
LINK
Fitzgerald Investigation/Libby Case Update, Part II
By Christy Hardin Smith
Aside from the Armitage speculation and other doings in the ongoing Fitzgerald investigation, there were some more salvos fired in the back and forth between Team Libby and Team Fitz.
The interesting question for me in the latest Team Libby filing (from May 19, 2006) is whether they are trying to bolster the "Scooter Libby’s memory is like swiss cheese" defense strategy — or whether they are trying to force Dick Cheney’s hand one way or the other by saying that Libby does not recall ever seeing the Cheney handwriting on the Wilson article.
This potentially would require Fitzgerald to call Cheney to the stand or not use the article as evidence — or find some other means to verify the handwriting. Or find some other witness that challenges Scooter’s memory by showing that, indeed, s/he participated in meetings with Dick and/or others wherein s/he clearly knew that this was Cheney’s handwriting, etc., etc.
But in my experience, putting that sort of pressure on someone as notoriously fond of playing hardball as Dick Cheney…well, it isn’t always the smartest of moves. Mayhap it was only meant to send a signal to pals in the WH that Team Libby is getting down to the wire on defense maneuvers — or maybe Scooter and company were telling the honest truth that he doesn’t recall seeing the Cheney notes on the Wilson article. But whatever the reasoning, the latest filings in the Libby case sure do stir the already swirling pot, don’t they?
Two media outlets have coverage on the latest Libby filing: NBC News and the WaPo. What I find most interesting about these two articles is that neither reporter or news outlet noted that there was any filing wahtsoever from Fitzgerald — only from Team Libby — despite the fact that both legal filings were served on the same day — May19th, 2006 and would, presumably, have shown up in the court docketing system for perusal since reader Momaloney found them — both — and sent them — both — to me via e-mail. (And a huge thank you to Momaloney for doing so!)
Is it me, or is the Babs Comstock Journalism-by-Proxy Fax Tip-line alive and well?
As NBC notes, Team Libby argues that Scooter’s prior G/J testimony was that he had not seen the Wilson article with Cheney’s handwritten annotations/questions until the FBI showed it to him during their investigation. Team Libby makes a pointed reference to both times that Libby testified to the grand jury that there was specification that he said he did not recall having seen the article until the FBI showed it to him.
Which begs the question, were there others in a meeting with Dick Cheney or with Scooter Libby who were directly shown the article with its Cheney notes — either by Dick himself or by Scooter explaining the notes as Dick’s proxy? Does Fitzgerald have their testimony before the Grand Jury — and is Scooter aware of it or fishing to see what Fitz has on this? And will there be testimony as such and, if so, how much does Team Libby know about this as a possibility — and how much does Team Fitz have on this above and beyond any grand jury testimony? You know, things like phone records, notes, etc.?
The whole revelation of the Cheney handwriting on the Wilson article was a huge neon sign last week, but I have to wonder if this isn’t why Team Libby started a bit of a drumbeat about Cathie Martin a few filings back. (Did Cathie, Dick and Scooter talk about this on their plane ride? Was this faxed/communicated to Ari Fleischer on Air Force 1 as talking points? And boy, doesn’t THAT raise some big questions, if so…) And about Marc Grossman as well — that whole credibility issue with Grossman would be crucial if it comes down to a "who do you believe, Marc or Scooter" defense.
And is the Libby defense coming down to a "which Cheney loyalist should you believe and why?" — because, if so, that is one helluva risk. Especially when you flirt with dragging in Cheney himself for testimony as part of your "force the prosecutor’s hand" strategy.
Ultimately, the discovery issues that are being argued will be resolved by the judge, looking at whether the documents or other pieces of evidence requested meet the standard of being material to the case as well as being exculpatory (making it look like Libby might be innocent or calling guilt into question — to shorthand that a whole lot). This, I think, is going to be a difficult argument for Libby’s attorneys to make successfully, as has been demonstrated in Judge Walton’s repeated warnings to them that he will not allow them to re-try the rationale for war in Iraq or other issues outside the scope of Libby’s indictment charges — five federal felony counts of perjury (twice), false statements (twice) and obstruction of justice.
As Fitzgerald’s team makes abundantly clear in their filing, Team Libby appears to be seeking a lot of this material, simply put in Team Fitz’ own words, to "make clear that he intends to use the documents he seeks for impeachment, or to re-focus the jury’s attention on the conduct of others, rather than his [Libby’s] own." That might be awfully helpful in terms of Team Libby’s smokescreen construction project — but it is not a reason to hand them a big pile of discovery that would likely qualify, if anything, as Jencks material at best.
Judge Walton has to make a call on all of this. And to do so, he will likely have to take a peek at some of it in camera and then make a determination as to materiality and relevance and exculpatory nature and such, but I think his statements during the last hearing show which way he tends to lean when there is a close call on potentially immaterial evidence. And that is bad news for Team Libby, no matter how much they may try to argue otherwise in public.
Oh, and Team Libby is using their "misrecollected in good faith" description of Scooter lying to the grand jury and the FBI again, in the context of Libby not having the specific intent to state false information.
Libby’s attorneys argue that their only reason to show what their client and other witnesses were doing in June and July of 2003 in response to Wilson’s charges is for a jury to “understand that Mr. Libby may have been confused or may have misrecollected facts in good faith, and did not act with a specific intent to give false testimony.” They write that only with such context will the jury appreciate that “Mr. Libby did not need to attack Mr. Wilson personally to rebut his allegations, because the administration had clear factual support for its position that Mr. Wilson’s criticisms were wrong.”
That they bring up Libby’s "misrecollected facts" in the context of essentially calling Joe Wilson the "liar" in all of this — especially given the nature of the charges for which Mr. Libby was indicted — would be amusing, if it didn’t carry with it such a whiff of sweaty palms.
LINK
Aside from the Armitage speculation and other doings in the ongoing Fitzgerald investigation, there were some more salvos fired in the back and forth between Team Libby and Team Fitz.
The interesting question for me in the latest Team Libby filing (from May 19, 2006) is whether they are trying to bolster the "Scooter Libby’s memory is like swiss cheese" defense strategy — or whether they are trying to force Dick Cheney’s hand one way or the other by saying that Libby does not recall ever seeing the Cheney handwriting on the Wilson article.
This potentially would require Fitzgerald to call Cheney to the stand or not use the article as evidence — or find some other means to verify the handwriting. Or find some other witness that challenges Scooter’s memory by showing that, indeed, s/he participated in meetings with Dick and/or others wherein s/he clearly knew that this was Cheney’s handwriting, etc., etc.
But in my experience, putting that sort of pressure on someone as notoriously fond of playing hardball as Dick Cheney…well, it isn’t always the smartest of moves. Mayhap it was only meant to send a signal to pals in the WH that Team Libby is getting down to the wire on defense maneuvers — or maybe Scooter and company were telling the honest truth that he doesn’t recall seeing the Cheney notes on the Wilson article. But whatever the reasoning, the latest filings in the Libby case sure do stir the already swirling pot, don’t they?
Two media outlets have coverage on the latest Libby filing: NBC News and the WaPo. What I find most interesting about these two articles is that neither reporter or news outlet noted that there was any filing wahtsoever from Fitzgerald — only from Team Libby — despite the fact that both legal filings were served on the same day — May19th, 2006 and would, presumably, have shown up in the court docketing system for perusal since reader Momaloney found them — both — and sent them — both — to me via e-mail. (And a huge thank you to Momaloney for doing so!)
Is it me, or is the Babs Comstock Journalism-by-Proxy Fax Tip-line alive and well?
As NBC notes, Team Libby argues that Scooter’s prior G/J testimony was that he had not seen the Wilson article with Cheney’s handwritten annotations/questions until the FBI showed it to him during their investigation. Team Libby makes a pointed reference to both times that Libby testified to the grand jury that there was specification that he said he did not recall having seen the article until the FBI showed it to him.
Which begs the question, were there others in a meeting with Dick Cheney or with Scooter Libby who were directly shown the article with its Cheney notes — either by Dick himself or by Scooter explaining the notes as Dick’s proxy? Does Fitzgerald have their testimony before the Grand Jury — and is Scooter aware of it or fishing to see what Fitz has on this? And will there be testimony as such and, if so, how much does Team Libby know about this as a possibility — and how much does Team Fitz have on this above and beyond any grand jury testimony? You know, things like phone records, notes, etc.?
The whole revelation of the Cheney handwriting on the Wilson article was a huge neon sign last week, but I have to wonder if this isn’t why Team Libby started a bit of a drumbeat about Cathie Martin a few filings back. (Did Cathie, Dick and Scooter talk about this on their plane ride? Was this faxed/communicated to Ari Fleischer on Air Force 1 as talking points? And boy, doesn’t THAT raise some big questions, if so…) And about Marc Grossman as well — that whole credibility issue with Grossman would be crucial if it comes down to a "who do you believe, Marc or Scooter" defense.
And is the Libby defense coming down to a "which Cheney loyalist should you believe and why?" — because, if so, that is one helluva risk. Especially when you flirt with dragging in Cheney himself for testimony as part of your "force the prosecutor’s hand" strategy.
Ultimately, the discovery issues that are being argued will be resolved by the judge, looking at whether the documents or other pieces of evidence requested meet the standard of being material to the case as well as being exculpatory (making it look like Libby might be innocent or calling guilt into question — to shorthand that a whole lot). This, I think, is going to be a difficult argument for Libby’s attorneys to make successfully, as has been demonstrated in Judge Walton’s repeated warnings to them that he will not allow them to re-try the rationale for war in Iraq or other issues outside the scope of Libby’s indictment charges — five federal felony counts of perjury (twice), false statements (twice) and obstruction of justice.
As Fitzgerald’s team makes abundantly clear in their filing, Team Libby appears to be seeking a lot of this material, simply put in Team Fitz’ own words, to "make clear that he intends to use the documents he seeks for impeachment, or to re-focus the jury’s attention on the conduct of others, rather than his [Libby’s] own." That might be awfully helpful in terms of Team Libby’s smokescreen construction project — but it is not a reason to hand them a big pile of discovery that would likely qualify, if anything, as Jencks material at best.
Judge Walton has to make a call on all of this. And to do so, he will likely have to take a peek at some of it in camera and then make a determination as to materiality and relevance and exculpatory nature and such, but I think his statements during the last hearing show which way he tends to lean when there is a close call on potentially immaterial evidence. And that is bad news for Team Libby, no matter how much they may try to argue otherwise in public.
Oh, and Team Libby is using their "misrecollected in good faith" description of Scooter lying to the grand jury and the FBI again, in the context of Libby not having the specific intent to state false information.
Libby’s attorneys argue that their only reason to show what their client and other witnesses were doing in June and July of 2003 in response to Wilson’s charges is for a jury to “understand that Mr. Libby may have been confused or may have misrecollected facts in good faith, and did not act with a specific intent to give false testimony.” They write that only with such context will the jury appreciate that “Mr. Libby did not need to attack Mr. Wilson personally to rebut his allegations, because the administration had clear factual support for its position that Mr. Wilson’s criticisms were wrong.”
That they bring up Libby’s "misrecollected facts" in the context of essentially calling Joe Wilson the "liar" in all of this — especially given the nature of the charges for which Mr. Libby was indicted — would be amusing, if it didn’t carry with it such a whiff of sweaty palms.
LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)