Libby lawyer to argue Bush's role in leak!

[napi21]

FOCUS | Libby Lawyer to Argue Bush's Role in Leak
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050606Y.shtml
The lawyer for former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby said on Friday he would argue that his client revealed intelligence on Iraq after Vice President Dick Cheney authorized it and President George W. Bush declassified the information.

I just got this in an email. I guess it's good news, but I still don't understand why Libby's lawyers are arguing this point! Libby was indicted for LYING to the authorities. How does this argument feght against that charge????

[aden_nak]

1. He'll argue that lying was part of the order he received.

And, of course, Bush had the power to give that order to lie to anyone (even a special prosecutor) as well as the power to leak that information just on the basis of his being President (technically, anyhow). So that's going to be the over-arch of the entire defense. Bush said it was okay.

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon

[bullimiami]

2. if a president lies, thats perjury. And he cant even lie to prosecutors or

investigators while not under oath.
This got Clinton impeached.

If a president tells someone else to lie, thats conspiracy and obstruction of justice, this is what was going to get Nixon impeached but he resigned first.

This tactic is NO defense for Libbys perjury charge and it puts him at odds with his bosses so what could Libby and his lawyers be up to?

Could they be trying to force the WH to protect him in some way or pardon him because they need to protect themselves?

[aden_nak]

6. But Clinton wasn't authorized by Congress to fight a War on Terror.

That gives Bush unlimited, unilateral powers, doncha'know?

[Scout1071]

23. Whoa, whoa, whoa! That is such a pre-9/11 mentality.

Don't you know that BushCo is entitled to do anything they want in this new world? The Constitution is sooooo pre-9/11.

Why do you hate Murka?

[bullimiami]

33. im a self hating 'murkin?

[sofa king]

38. That's why he never speaks under oath.

I could be wrong about this, but I think that the only times that the President has spoken on the record under oath is during his State of the Union addresses. That's why that little fib about African uranium is so damned important: it's a lie under oath. Keeping that little indiscretion at bay is why Libby lied and obstructed the investigation. Now that the election is past, everyone is home free, as the lame duck President will have nothing to prevent him from pardoning the whole lot--so long as they can drag the investigation out past the end of the President's term.

[napi21]

4. Hmmmm.....NO! Shrub may THINK he has to power to order someone

yo lie to a Fed Prosecutor, but I'm thinkin he WRONG!!!!!!

Gotta give Libby's lawyers cedit though, they are throwing everything against the wall to see if ANYTHING sticks!

[TahitiNut]

17. So, he's claiming that Junior suborned perjury, huh?

Suborning perjury to a grand jury is a felony.

[The Backlash Cometh]

39. Why would he have to lie about it if it was declassified?

[H2O Man]

3. Team Libby

wants to make the trial about anything -- and everything -- other than what Scooter is accused of. In this case, they hope to have the jury return a decision on the war, because they know that 20% of Americans still support Bush on the war, and that would increase the chances of a hung jury.

If they were allowed to, they would enter the leather glove found at Rockingham into evidence; accuse OJ of dropping it, and Mark Fuhrman of planting it; and let Scooter try it on to show the jury it was far too large to have belonged to their client.

[helderheid]

5. I was just about to post this! RECOMMENDED!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. Herr Busch doesn't have the authority to declassify anything....

...and this is only a small part of what is going to eventually get him removed from power.

Libby is toast, and his lawyer is becoming increasingly more desperate to find some way to keep Libby out of prison.

[helderheid]

8. going down swinging, screaming and kicking.

[helderheid]

9. I'm shocked this thread isn't burning with a thousand recommends!

[annabanana]

10. weekend. . . . . . . eom

[helderheid]

11. ah... See, I gots no life! :)

[napi21]

13. ;o) Me too I guess! I know when I read the email, it was quite

surprised that at least the lawyers seem to be turning on Shrub and Darth Vader.

I'll have to repost it on Monday when things are more active!

[Catherine Vincent]

12. We'll have to keep this kicked thru Monday.

:-)

[garybeck]

14. Leaking intelligence VS Leaking operative's names

in order to really understand what this is about, we have to know if they are referring to the leaking of INTELLIGENCE, i.e. who has weapons and why our country is in danger, OR, if they are referring to leaking of OPERATIVE'S NAMES.

One can make a case for the President declassifying intelligence, because he feels the country needs to know something.

But there is NO CASE for leaking the name of a CIA operative. There is no reason for anyone to declassify this information.

The SPIN that Libby is trying to do, is mixing these two issues into one. The trial is about leaking the operatives name, but they are trying to mix it all in with the issue of declassifying intelligence. They are two separate issues completely.

I hope Fitz realizes this and I'm sure he does. But we should not pay much attention to all this hubbub about Bush declassifying any kind of intelligence. It's barking up the wrong tree. Only if it is about revealing the name of a CIA operative do things get interesting.

[helderheid]

15. thanks garybeck!

[H2O Man]

18. Right.

I would note that Mr. Fitzgerald, in his investigation, put a great deal of focus on Mr. Libby telling reporters about the NIE. While it is indeed distinct from a CI NOC's identity, Mr. Fitzgerald is the one who has made the NIE an issue.

[garybeck]

19. which makes me wonder

Fitz has a way of talking about "stuff" without really saying what it is. Like how he calls a person "Subject A" and then he can talk about him all he want, and then at the end he reveals that all along he was referring to ____________.

I wonder if the same sort of thing is going on here. He talks about "classified intelligence," in a sort of hazy way, and at the end he could reveal that all along he's been referring to one specific thing.

[stepnw1f]

30. Ahhhhh.... I See It (nt)

[Garbo 2004]

16. Libby's lawyers want to argue the case they want rather than the charges

Libby actually faces. Distraction and dissembling. And it looks like the judge is losing patience with their game.

From the WaPo:

Wells signaled that he would mount an attack on the idea that the White House could have been the first to disclose Plame's status as a CIA official, saying that he would "call at least five witnesses who will say under oath that Wilson told them about his wife."

Wells also took aim at Marc Grossman, a former undersecretary of state who, according to the indictment against Libby, recalled discussing Plame's CIA job with Libby in June 2003.

Wells said that he needed documents to cast doubt on the accuracy of any testimony by Grossman, whom he identified as a longtime friend and traveling partner of Wilson's.

Walton seemed skeptical. "If Wilson is a habitual liar" about his wife's CIA status, the judge asked, "how does that bear on whether your client . . . allegedly lied?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501379_pf.html

[many a good man]

20. Five witnesses to testify Wilson outed his own wife???

What impact could this have on the jury? It is of course irrelevant to the perjury and OOJ charges, but will it affect the premise that these charges were based on?

Who did Joe tell and did they ever talk? If so, to whom? When? I know Fitzgerald and Walton say her employment was not "common knowledge" as alleged by Libby. Is this information new? Has the GJ heard it?

Anybody else get a slightly sick feeling in their stomach upon reading this?

[janx]

24. No.

Because A., I don't believe it, and B., Libby's lawyers are doing anything and everything to avoid what Libby's trial is about.

[Garbo 2004]

27. This is old baloney from the time they were swiftboating Wilson.

Not really all that new. Just more distraction and dissembling. FDL has an article on it with links to other articles. http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/05/desperation-sets-in/

I figure the Libby team's claims in this matter are just as credible as their and Libby's continued insistence (in the filings) that he learned of Plame's identity from Russert, although Russert's on the record to Fitz denying that their conversation had anything to do with Wilson/Plame and Russert says he didn't even know about Wilson's wife's employment at the time he and Scooter spoke. Scooter had called Russert to complain about Tweety and that was what they discussed. (According to Libby he just forgot that his boss, Cheney, had told him that Plame worked in the CIA's Directorate of Operations only weeks before. So he "thought" he first learned of her CIA employment from Russert. And he also didn't/doesn't mention that he first told Judy Miller about Plame weeks before he spoke to Russert.) In short, Libby's team's filings aren't restricted to actual facts, they can claim what they want. Doesn't mean it's so, doesn't mean they can produce the witnesses and the witnesses will really testify as stated. In fact, I'm betting they know it won't happen, that it won't be allowed by the court. So they can claim all sorts of things. It's a ploy.

Witness lists and filings at this stage of the game in a case like this include ploys and feints and are not just for the consumption of the court in which they're filed. There's an outside audience. (Which is why Libby's team leaked docs/info in the case that were not yet public to friendly media like the NY Sun. They're conducting a battle that is not just in the court.)

Given the judge's comments, it looks like he's not buying into any of their attempts to make the case about anything else other than the charges actually before the court. Wilson could have told people his wife was from Alpha Centauri and it would be just as irrelevant to the crimes Libby is charged with.

[H2O Man]

40. It's probably one of

the last tactics the defense should attempt in this trial. The jury is likely to see it as an extension of the dirty type of attack on Wilson that is the root of the scandal. It seems that Mr. Wells must be aware that there is no defense for Scooter, save saying that everyone else involved -- Wilson, Russert, Miller, Grossman, Fleischer and Rove -- are all liars. It would require the jurors to believe that Mr. Fitzgerald is either a fool or part of the plot against Scooter.

[sallyseven]

31. No the lawyer is spinning.

The charge is perjury. Not outing Plame. Don't worry. Libby is going to jail. So will Rove. Lawyers lie all the time.

[many a good man]

32. Thanks. But what about the investigation?

The investigation is about who leaked a covert agent's identity to the press. In the course of the investigation it has been determined that Scooter lied and obstructed so he was indicted. We expect Rove to be indicted soon on the same charges. Is Fitz any closer to indicting someone on the main charges or has all this stonewalling successfully stymied him?

[janx]

34. I doubt he's stymied, though he was clearly not happy

with the amount of time wasted because of Libby's perjury and obstruction. He seems to be proceeding very methodically; given his reputation, I'd say he's doing so for a very good reason.

[bleever]

21. 'Theodore V. Wells Jr., Mr. Libby's chief lawyer, told Judge Walton

on Friday that he needed the government records of Mr. Wilson's trip because "the trip is what the whole controversy is about."'

Scooter isn't on trial for "controversy". He's on trial for not telling the truth.

Up next: Ted Wells demands the court allow the Rockettes to perform because, as a "class act", they bear directly on the act of declassification.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Get the corn a-poppin'!!

The neoconservatives devour their children.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Meanwhile, we devour the popcorn.

[Disturbed]

25. Brewster Jennings was a covert Operation.

Busholini, Cheney had no legal basis for revealing that to the Press via Libby & Rove.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. Precisely

See Article 5 here.

[Garbo 2004]

28. Libby isn't claiming that they did. Just to be clear on that point.

Libby's still claiming he didn't leak Plame's employment or was an original source for reporters on the Plame story. So he's not at all claiming that "his superiors" authorized or instructed him to leak her CIA identity. He's still a barricade for his bosses on that point.

[janx]

29. Yes indeed.

I wonder how carefully his cadre of lawyers is being monitored by the Chimp and friends.

[mom cat]

35. Drip, drip, drip

:popcorn:

[caffefwee]

36. get the jail cell ready

[Greyskye]

37. How much do you want to bet...

...that they feel that one of those "Presidential Signing Orders" will protect the Dim Son? He's made so many of those damn things that this has to be covered under one of them!

:sarcasm: