|
fishing expedition (looking for what, I'm not sure--probably seeds of the cover story planted around town).
The judge neatly sums up the case:
"...it is helpful to set forth what this case is and is not about, as this reality defines the scope of the discovery the defendant is entitled to receive. On October 28, 2005, the defendant was charged in a five-count indictment (including)...
obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (2000), two counts of false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2000), and two counts of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (2000). ....All of these charges arise from a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information about Valerie Plame Wilson’s affiliation with the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) to several journalists. ....And specifically, the charges against the defendant are predicated upon statements that he allegedly made to Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in October and November, 2003, id. at 9, ¶ 26, and testimony he provided to a grand jury in March 2004, id. at 11, ¶ 30. The allegedly false statements related to conversations the defendant had with news reporters Tim Russert, Judith Miller, and Matthew Cooper in June and July 2003.
(He then goes on to say that, while these purportedly false statements occurred in the context of Wilson's argument with the WH over Iraq war/WMD, this has "only peripheral pertinence to this case." Same for the outing of Plame--the meat of the Fitzgerald investigation. In order words, he denies all docs to Libby that will lead to the trial being a he said/she said on the war.)
I found this part interesting...
(Page 6) "Rather, the only documents that would be material to the preparation of the defense are those that were reviewed by either the defendant or potential witnesses. See United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 56, 64 (D.D.C. 1992) (“It is immaterial what Congress knew unless the defendant was aware of their knowledge.”). Thus, for example, the fact that other governmental officials may have known before July 14, 2003, that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA is completely immaterial unless that information was shared with either the defendant, Miller, Russert, or Cooper. Moreover, the only use that could be made with the vast majority of the requested documents that fall within the seven categories would be to challenge the accuracy of Ambassador Wilson’s comments about the validity of President Bush’s statement about Saddam Hussein and Niger in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address. And, as previously discussed, documents and information which may have bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the President’s statement on that topic, why the United States invaded Iraq, and the circumstances surrounding Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger and his reported findings are wholly immaterial to this case."
-----
"...the fact that other governmental officials may have known before July 14, 2003, that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA...."
So, Fitzgerald has lots of stuff on WHO KNEW and WHEN, that he is withholding--that is not pertinent to Libby's lies/obstruction regarding what Libby said to the three reporters. Similarly, Fitzgerald has a whole lot of material on the argument between Wilson and the WH, and re the Niger trip. None of it relevant here. What WOULD it be relevant to, except to the TRUE REASONS for the outing of Plame and Brewster-Jennings? Was this a policy argument that got way, way out of control (to the point of getting our agents/contacts killed or putting them in danger)? Or was it something else?
I don't want to minimize committing such acts out of motives of political punishment or to silence dissent. That's bad enough--and would indicate an unbelievable recklessness of the Bushites and chaos in their "command" structure. (How could such a thing NOT have been stopped before it reached the SECOND outing, that of the Brewster-Jennings network?) But I smell something far worse--that the WH/Pentagon deliberately outed this network, KNOWING that it could get people killed, and FULLY AWARE of its value for honest intelligence.
I sense somebody moving these chess pieces--Rumsfeld, I suspect--orchestrating different parts of it, so that one set of people thinks they're just doing a Rovian political number on Wilson, not too important to intelligence (Plame about to retire, or whatever), and not a crime; some of these (Rove?) are set up as the first line to take the fall, if necessary--they're told it's all been "authorized", legal butts covered, or it's not a crime. Others are deeper in--setting up the set ups (Libby?), with more knowledge of the criminal aspect, and the target (Plame/BJ network); Libby maybe arranges for Cheney to scribble the outline of the Wilson/WH policy difference, on the newspaper clipping of Wilson's article, to make that line seem credible, if necessary. (If this multiple lines of defense, multiple coverup tales is true, then THAT is what Libby has been fishing for--the various coverup narratives and "evidence" that supports them.) Libby is meanwhile planting seeds all over town, that "everybody knew" Plame was CIA.
Rumsfeld, lurking in the Pentagon, probably thought the whole thing up from Day One, back in 2001 and the Rome meeting (where the Niger forgeries were likely concocted)--and considered himself a great genius--and got Cheney involved for personal reasons (illicit arms dealings; war profiteering); Cheney willing to say anything, authorize anything, write anything, sign anything, backdated or whatever, to help remove any honest trackers of his worldly activities. But the "I am the Dark Master of the Universe" smell to this crime or crimes suits Rumsfeld most of all. I also wonder how they've used spying, torture and rendition for this particular crime and its true ends. Are some of these anonymously tortured prisoners our former covert counter-proliferation agents or contacts, who got ferreted out by the Novak outings, and are now in a dungeon somewhere in eastern Europe, or dead. One shudders to think. The sources of two reports in the Islamic press of foiled US efforts to plant WMD in Iraq dried up several years ago; there were no follow-up reports. Were they silenced?
The dry legalisms of the case mask a harrowing tale, I think--howlings from Hell, a Pandora's Box of horrors. Given what we know NOW about Bush and his junta's deep attachment to torture--their hanging onto to that dreadful and illegal power with tooth and claw--and all the other revelations about them (pervasive spying--thus, blackmail capability, and also tracking ability for whomever they consider to be "enemies"; and the evidence of and persistent rumors about punitive slayings in Iraq, by contractors and official military), the Plame/BJ outings, which occurred during what may have been the Bushites' worst crimes and worst abuses of power, back in 2003, inevitably take on that coloration--the coloration of a House of Horrors--and seem very related to it. And I wonder about this mass of material that Fitzgerald is withholding, as he focuses his laser-like prosecution on Libby's lies and obstruction. In his press conference on the Libby indictment, Fitzgerald stated that he wants to know the REASONS for the Plame outing--because it was the REASONS for it that are the "grave matter of national security" with which he is dealing. I'm sure he meant the REAL reasons.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
