Libby Defense: didn't know Plame info classified, couldn't have knowingly violated Espionage Act

[sabra]

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf

Neither Mr. Libby Nor Anyone Else Understood Ms. Wilson To
Be Covert or Classified

The Court’s focus during trial on what Mr. Libby actually knew about
Ms. Wilson’s status was correct, in light of the discovery provided to the defense. And to
the extent that the Court needs to consider Ms. Wilson’s status during this phase of the
proceedings, it remains correct. There is simply no evidence that Mr. Libby received
information indicating that Ms. Wilson’s position at the CIA was covert or classified.
Mr. Libby consistently testified that he did not understand Ms. Wilson to
be covert or classified. As detailed below, all of the relevant evidence – including the
grand jury and trial testimony of the government’s own witnesses – corroborates
Mr. Libby’s testimony that he was unaware of Ms. Wilson’s status. In light of the record,
then, it is misleading for the government to suggest that Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony
on this point should not be believed.

As Mr. Libby told the grand jury, the Vice President told him that
Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA in June, but did not indicate that Ms. Wilson was covert or
that her job status was classified. This is consistent with Mr. Libby’s notes of that
conversation, which do not identify Ms. Wilson as covert or classified. See GX 104; GX
104T. At trial, the government produced three witnesses who said they, too, had told
Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA: Marc Grossman; Robert Grenier; and
Cathie Martin. None of them testified that he or she had told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson
was covert or classified.

The government also called five witnesses who said that Mr. Libby had
mentioned or referred to Ms. Wilson in conversations during June and July 2003: Craig
Schmall; Ari Fleischer; David Addington; Judith Miller; and Matthew Cooper. None of
these witnesses (nor any other trial witnesses) testified that Mr. Libby said Ms. Wilson
was covert. None of them testified that they believed Mr. Libby had been
communicating classified information to them. In sum, none of the witnesses who
testified at trial said that prior to July 14, 2003, they believed that Ms. Wilson’s affiliation
with the CIA was protected information.

...

The government does not explicitly concede a related point: that the
information provided to Mr. Libby did not identify Ms. Wilson as classified either. But
there can be no escaping this fact. We reiterate: no witness claims to have told
Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was classified. (In fact, putting
aside what these witnesses actually told Mr. Libby, none of them testified that they
personally believed that Ms. Wilson’s status was classified at the time). Logically, then,
there is no basis to conclude that Mr. Libby received information about Ms. Wilson that
he knew was classified. For this reason alone, Mr. Libby could not have knowingly
violated the IIPA or the Espionage Act.

[napi21]

1. Do they REALLY expect me to buy this BS?

I'm willing to accept that no one told Libby that Valerie was a covert agent, BUT we aren't talking about a new green & inexperienced kid here! Libby has worked in Gov't service for quite a few years. Aren't they all taught that you always ASSUME something or someone is classified until you are told otherwise? Especially if they work for the CIA!!!!

Nice try guys, but I ain't buyin it!

[Virginian]

2. But he knew enough to perjure himself when talking to Fitz.

He wasn't convicted of outing Valerie Plame, he was convicted of obstructing the case enough that Fitz couldn't do his job.

His defense is that he is not guilty of that for which he was not tried nor convicted? He is still doing it. He is still misleading people. Double his time for not learning to tell the truth.

[leveymg]

3. #1, that's a lie (he knew); and #2, he committed perjury

Everyone who saw the July 7 INR Notes referencing "Valerie Wilson" saw that the document was marked Secret and the little "S" markings next to the paragraph that named her.

He knew she was covert.

Besides, he committed perjury when he lied to the GJ about the question put to him about from whom he learned about Mrs. Wilson. He said a newsperson. That was a lie. He first learned about Valerie from Cheney, and then Grenier, a CIA officer who worked with Plame.

Scooter goes to jail. What a lame defense.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. ignorance is no excuse... n/t

[BlooInBloo]

5. Go for double or nothing! Wanna say that on the stand, under oath? heh-heh.

[Bitwit1234]

6. OK...so........that's not what he was found guilty of.

He was not indicted for revealing Plame's name. The couldn't prove he violated the Espionage Act because he and cheney and rove hid the evidence. He was indicted and found guilty of lying under oath....something the republicans say President Clinton did and he (Clinton) got impeached.

[TBUSA]

7. They are questioning the Judges Calculations

This is part of the Defenses memo to the Judge in regards to sentencing. In the fuller document they are making the case that the cross references that Fitz suggests the Judge uses, are incorrect cross references.
Libby's boys are asserting that the sentencing cross-references Fitz accerts would result in a 14 sentence rating. By their calcs Scooter should come in at a 9 rating. The cross references they pick from Fitz's memorandum DO cite the need for an underlying crime before they can be applied.But still, one of the cross references is triggered when a crime is evident(in that case drugs were found although no conviction was made).
That cross reference may be triggered in this case because obviously an agent was outted.But the other cross-references cited maybe cannot be used by the Judge for sentencing... H?

[jaysunb]

8. Thanks and welcome

to DU. :hi:

[WinkyDink]

9. Then why do it? Yeah, thought so.

[H2O Man]

10. An important point:

In his May 25, 2007 "Government's Sentencing Memorandum," Mr. Fitzgerald reminds us of this:

"As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F. 3d 1141, 1182 (DC Cir, 2006), 'insofar as false testimony may have impaired the special counsel's identification of culprits, perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications. What's more, because the charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame's exposure, prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak'." (page 15)

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Tell it to the Judge, he'll lock ya up for lying!

:evilgrin: