The Blue State

More legal fun for the White House

Several months after it had been proven that Dick Cheney extensively annotated Joseph Wilson's 2003 New York Times article "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Valerie Plame is suing the Vice President for his role in smearing her family for discovering the truth about Iraq's virtually nonexistent nuclear weapons program.  Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are the targets of the lawsuit as well:

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued VicePresident Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviserKarl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials ofconspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and herhusband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Roveand I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity inseeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bushadministration's motives in Iraq.

Now that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed reporter Robert Novak that his leak investigation is over, the Wilson family had no choice but to hold Cheney, Rove and Libby accountable in court.

Let me guess: Cheney's lawyers will ask the judge to throw out the case because they think the jury should not have access to classified information.  Mark my words that is what will be requested!

Nonetheless, the Administration should have fun dealing with yet another legal battle as we inch closer to the midterm elections this November.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: 1115.org, The Immoral Minority, Crooks and Liars, Can't Keep Quiet, News Hounds, Everything Between, Drinking Liberally in Oakland, Left Turn with Cecily Friday, Mass Revolution Now!, Ice Station Tango, The Humid Haney Rant, Eric M, Perception Managers, The Daily Clips.

No indictment for Rove only means so much

So Karl Rove will not be indicted after all.  In the end, Fitzgerald probably felt that he did not have enough ammunition to counter the expected procedural tactics from lawyer Robert Luskin if his client Rove had been indicted.  However, this does not mean that Rove definitely did not play a role in the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph Wilson.  The White House Adviser was the infamous "Official A" that Fitzgerald referred to in the Libby indictment papers.  "Official A", Karl Rove, was in direct contact with Robert Novak around the time that the former CNN reporter wrote the column that leaked Plame's name to the public.

Just because Fitzgerald chose not to indict Karl Rove does not mean that the White House's dismal political fortunes over the last year will be reversed over night.

Libby will try to convince jury he had memory problems

The Washington Journal reports that Scooter Libby is so far on the defensive that his best defense is that he had a serious memory problem:

The defense team for former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. LewisLibby said it is considering calling a memory expert to testify at histrial early next year.

Libby is charged with five counts of lying to federal investigatorsand the grand jury and obstructing an investigation into whether Bushadministration officials wrongfully disclosed the identity of a CIAagent. He has pleaded not guilty.

Attorneys representing Libbyhave said in court filings that any erroneous statements made toFederal Bureau of Investigation agents or the grand jury were theresult of a faulty memory, and not intentional lies. It isn’t clear ifthe federal judge hearing the case would allow such testimony. At astatus hearing Monday, Libby’s attorneys said they would notify thejudge by July 17 if they plan to call such a witness, and thegovernment could then object.

Remember what this is about though.  Scooter Libby told Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury that he learned the identity of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, from the media -- although he could not recall who in the media told him.  Fitzgerald took him at his word until two CIA agents came forward and explained to the prosecutor that they told Libby the identity of Plame months before Libby talked to the media about her.  In other words, Libby lied to Fitzgerald and the grand jury, which is a crime.  So it will come down to whether Libby knowingly lied, or whether Libby simply did not remember. 

My guess is that Libby probably would have remembered, especially since he was dealing with sensitive information about a CIA operative that he was told by his boss, Dick Cheney, to investigate.  I mean, how do you treat that kind of an issue lightly?  So, the "I can't remember" argument does not really fly.

Patrick Fitzgerald plans to call those two CIA agents in to testify against Libby.

Fitzgerald toying with Libby's attorney

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald can celebrate a huge victory.  In court on Friday, the judge in the CIA leak case ruled in favor of Patrick Fitzgerald, saying that Scooter Libby's attorney can only have limited access to classified classified documents pertaining to the damage that the CIA leak caused.

But the reasoning behind Judge Walton's decision was what was interesting.  Read this excerpt carefully:

Walton said Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald convinced him thatproviding Libby's lawyers with classified documents describing theconsequences, if any, of Plame's outing and her CIA employment history"could cause serious if not grave damage to the national security ofthe United States."

Key words: "cause..damage to the national security of the United States."  Who does that rhetoric remind you of?  In a nut-shell, the ironic part about this was that Fitzgerald was using President Bush's own rhetoric against one of his own men, Scooter Libby. 

Months ago, the White House got mad at the New York Times for discussing the classified wiretap program.  In this legal battle, Fitzgerald simply took a page out of Bush's own rhetorical handbook, saying that allowing Libby's attorney to view classified information would pose a national security danger to the United States.  In other words, Fitzgerald is telling the former Administration official to eat his own words, and in the end it might help convict him.

Am I the only one who finds that hilarious?  Libby's attorney thus far is proving to be absolutely no match for Mr. Fitzgerald.  This latest court decision regarding classified information shows that Fitzgerald is just toying with the defense team.  Libby is in way over his head on this one.

Fitzgerald's Cheney statement teases progressives

In his latest court filing, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald included a line or two about Cheney that is the ultimate teaser for progressives, especially those in the blogosphere. 

Fitzgerald is arguing that Libby lied to federal officials and the grand jury about how he learned the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent.  Libby testified that reporters told him Libby's identity.  But two CIA agents that will be called by Fitzgerald to testify say they had a discussion with Libby about Valerie Plame long before Libby ever talked with reporters about Plame -- proving that Libby did not tell the truth about the whole ordeal.

The reason why this is a teaser is because Fitzgerald is suggesting that Cheney himself "directed" Libby to find a way to respond to Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times.  Here is an excerpt of the court filing:

"..the annotations corroborate the government's other evidence indicating that these issues were communicated to defendant by his immediate superior, who also directed defendant during the critical week after July 6 to get out into the public 'all' the facts in response to the Wilson Op Ed."

In other words, it looks like Fitzgerald is trying to say that Cheney was responsible ordering the leak, even though the leak itself might have come from Libby.

And in related news, Robert Novak and Karl Rove have a deal going.

Cheney to make cameo, and why Libby is screwed

While prosecutors familiar with the investigation told Hardball's David Schuster yesterday that that Karl Rove would have been cleared weeks ago had he been innocent, there is also fresh news on the Scooter Libby front.  Word late yesterday that Dick Cheney might testify in the CIA leak case circulated throughout Washington faster than Jeff Gannon could interrupt a White House press conference.  In a filing in court yesterday, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald noted that Cheney's actions in the days leading up to the leak are very important in determining whether Libby lied to federal officials:

Libby "shared the interests of his superior and was subject to hisdirection," the prosecutor wrote. "Therefore, the state of mind of thevice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevantto the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statementsto federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learnedabout (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding thisissue."

In looking at this statement closely, what Fitzgerald wrote about Cheney was very significant.  If Libby lied to federal agents and the grand jury partly because Libby was "subject to his (Cheney's) direction," then this really puts Cheney in a huge predicament.  In other words, the Vice President will likely play a huge role in the trial.

But Cheney's situation is not even close to as stressful as what Libby is going through.  The New York Daily News reports that Patrick Fitzgerald will call two CIA officials as witnesses because they have unmistakable proof that Scooter Libby did lie to both federal officials and the grand jury.  Read this carefully:

Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraqinvasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist RobertNovak 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.

In other words, Libby had already testified under oath before this year that reporters were the ones that told him the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.  However, these two witnesses will testify that they talked to Libby about Plame before Libby talked with reporters, proving that Libby lied.  Oops!

Karl Rove survives the day

White House Adviser Karl Rove survived yet another week without being indicted.  The web site Talk Left confirmed that nothing will happen today, thanks to what the web site's author was told in an e-mail by Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo.  Here was what Rove's spokesman wrote:

"Nothing going on. I was told by several journalists who were down atthe courthouse that the Grand Jury was not meeting today. Of course,the GJ may be meeting at the undisclosed location (as VP Cheney is outof town and not using it today...)"

This development should make progressive blog readers consider the possibility that Jason Leopold of Truthout.org, who wrote last weekend that Karl Rove will be indicted, was lied to by his source.  Either that, or Leopold has a lot of explaining to do, and should not trust that source ever again.

At the same token, this does not mean that Rove will not be indicted eventually.  It just contradicts rumors late last night that the indictment was going to take place today.

Making sense of this Rove indictment mayhem

There is still no new information about the almost certainly imminent indictment of White House Advisor Karl Rove.  Over the weekend, political Jason Leopold told all that Karl Rove was notified on Saturday that he will be indicted on perjury charges.

But according to the conservative magazine National Review, Rove's defense spokesperson Mark Corallo said nothing has happened yet.  Byron York of National Review said he sat down with Corallo for some questioning about the case:

Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.

Now before you bow your head in sadness that Rove might not get indicted after all, William Pitt of Democratic Underground said he talked to Jason Leopold about his Rove indictment article.  Pitt explained why we might not even learn anything until Wednesday:

I just got off the phone with Jason Leopold who clarified something for me that is pretty damned important.  In his article, he said:

"Duringthe course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for formerDeputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment chargingthe embattled White House official with perjury and lying toinvestigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructedone of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get hisaffairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of themeeting said Saturday morning."

In point of fact, those 24 hours are "business hours," i.e. starting on Monday.

"Jeez,Jason," I said, "we might want to put that into the essay. Half theplanet thought 24 hours was 24 hours. They thought the deal would godown today."

To be fair, a dozen eyes looked at that articleyesterday before we published it, mine included, and none of us caughtthat. The word "business" has been inserted into the story after"hours" where it belongs:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

So.  Monday at the very earliest, but more like Tuesday or Wednesday.

Expect for some of the major news networks and newspapers to start rumblings a day or so before the announcement.  In the meantime, try to relax!

Cheney and Libby at center of Plame investigation

As it was thought months ago, Fitzgerald is going argue during next year's trial of Scooter Libby that Dick Cheney intended to get back at Joseph Wilson for the Ambassador's column in the New York Times that criticized the Administration's lack of evidence about Saddam's Niger connection.  But as revealed in the latest court filing, there is more to it than that.  Fitzgerald has even more evidence to support the claim that Cheney and Libby were out to get him, according to the AP:

In the latest court filing late Friday, Fitzgerald said he intendsto introduce at Libby's trial in January a copy of Wilson's op-edarticle in The New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by thevice president." The article was published on July 6, 2003, eight daysbefore Plame's identity was exposed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

The notations "support the proposition that publication of theWilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president andthe defendant — his chief of staff — on Mr. Wilson, on the assertionsmade in the article and on responding to those assertions."

The article containing Cheney's notes "reflects the contemporaneousreaction of the vice president to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article," theprosecutor said. "This is relevant to establishing some of the factsthat were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior,including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,' thefiling states.

What this all means is that Cheney had a copy of Wilson's New York Times piece, and took notes in the margins of the article.  I'm sure you're thinking about now, "Well Cheney, that was a smart one!"  My question is how did Fitzgerald find that evidence?  Also, why was Cheney dumb enough to hang onto such a paper, knowing full well that it could be used against him?

Video: Rove's indictment would rip off White House "scab" about Plame outing

On the syndicated weekend program "The Chris Matthews Show", Howard Fineman was asked about how the White House will be impacted if it is true that Karl Rove will be indicted:

Click to watch clip >>> (Windows Media Player)

FINEMAN: "Karl Rove is the guy who guides political strategy in the White House.  And also, there will be further questions raised about exactly what the White House was up to when they were going after Joseph Wilson."

MATTHEWS: "So it rips the scab, if you will, off that whole question about WMD and why they were so nervous about a nobody named Joe Wilson questioning them, right?"

FINEMAN: "Absolutely."

Yes.  Exactly.  This is where Cheney's role comes in -- which is what Karl Rove will probably testify.  Years from now, we will look back at Patrick Fitzgerald and think of him as the man that made the White House turn against itself.