Bush Is Chided by Prosecutor in Libby Case (Great HEADLINE)

[rodeodance]

http://www.nysun.com/article/48963

Bush Is Chided by Prosecutor in Libby Case

By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, is suggesting in his strongest terms yet that Vice President Cheney was involved in an effort to unmask a CIA operative married to an administration critic.

Mr. Fitzgerald's explosive comments came as he delivered closing arguments yesterday in the monthlong obstruction-of-justice and perjury trial of Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.

"There's a cloud over the vice president," Mr. Fitzgerald told the jury. "We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."

The prosecutor also asserted that Mr. Libby violated a request from investigators by discussing his recollections about the case with his boss, Mr. Cheney, while the probe was under way. "He's not supposed to be talking to other people," Mr. Fitzgerald said of Mr. Libby. "The only person he told is the vice president. … Think about that."

Broadening his attack on the White House, Mr. Fitzgerald took a shot at President Bush, indirectly criticizing him for not firing officials implicated in the leaks about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The prosecutor noted that in 2003 the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush would immediately dismiss anyone involved in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.

Continued
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next »

[yellowcanine]

1. Well that will put a twist in knickers at the WH. Fitz had better stay out of small planes.

[myrna minx]

2. I wonder where the naysayers are who suggested that Fitz

is either a Republican mole or not properly doing his job. *crickets*

[rodeodance]

5. Nothing was UNknown by Fritz before he went to trial----He just did not

feel he had a slam dunk case against high level WH people (vp and pres).

I see this as the closest he gets.

[myrna minx]

11. I think he has more work to do.

He still has a grand jury. If this was the end game, he would have dismissed them, imo.

[orleans]

22. hope you're right about that. n/t

[myrna minx]

23. I really think so.

Fitz is not a hasty man and he always has a long term plan. It took him *years*, but he took down the corrupt Illinois Governor, mafia man John Gambino and his cronies as well as prosecuting the men behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He's no lightweight. I don't think he's finished his job.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/fitzgerald.profi...

[Kare]

37. Hope you are right...

I hope that Libby sings like a canary.

[Traveling_Home]

10. Sticks and Stones may break my bones .....

This great legal mind only got Libby to trial and that on a perjury charge not even on outing a covert agent. Hard for me to paint Fitz as anything but useless. IMO

[myrna minx]

12. Why do suggest that he is useless?

He still has a grand jury. If the grand jury was unnecessary, he would have dismissed them. In order to proceed with his original charge, he needed to move forward with the Libby prosecution. Libby obstructed justice and if he is convicted, Fitz will be able to move higher up the food chain, wherever the facts take him.

[stop the bleeding]

29. yep, pyramid style is how Fitz worked in the conviction of the Illinois Gov.

Me thinks his statements today begin laying the ground work for the future. Also lest we forget Libby is facing 5 counts each worth 5 years, he has kids and a wife. 10 years would kill him, is there still a possibility of flipping him and moving to OVP?

[myrna minx]

41. That's the big question, isn't it.

If Libby is banking on a pardon from Bush, then no, unfortunately, but that's unlikely. Hopefully Fitz has all that he needs to pursuit the bigger fish.

On edit--Adding a link to H2O Man's excellent analysis about the pardon question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[cassiepriam]

17. I think the damage was subtle, behind the scenes and very devastating.

[cui bono]

20. Have you read about his taking down the Gov of Illinois?

Took him 6 years and a lot of underling convictions but he got him.

Not only that, you really think the information that came out of the trial is useless? If so, why do you think that?

[rebel with a cause]

26. Oh, you scared me there for a minute.

Your talking about the old governor, that SOB we use to have. Not the one we have now. No body better go after Blagoyevich. Not without a very good reason.

[Missy Vixen]

33. You'll be going back to school for your law degree, won't you?

>Hard for me to paint Fitz as anything but useless. IMO<

You'll be going to work as an AUSA, right? You'll spend seven years in school (and rack up an unbelievable amount of student loan debt,) to spend twenty years working unbelievable hours, assembling a cases won percentage that most in the legal profession can only envy, and starting out at oh, $40K a year. Don't forget to make those student loan payments out of your huge salary, too.

While I'm on the subject, those who've been actually following the CIA leak case already know that initially charging the original crime ensured that the case would be graymailed out of court before the ink was dry on the signature on the filing paperwork. Those who've followed Patrick Fitzgerald's career as well also know that he starts at the bottom in every case he's prosecuted and works his way up. (See the Governor Ryan case, for instance -- five years and something like 66 different defendants, if I remember correctly.)

The reading can start here: http://www.firedoglake.com/category/cia-leak-case /

Julie

[hwmnbn]

39. Thank you JulieRB......

for stating the truth, not the spin.

I'm an FDL junkie now. It's great to be informed.

[Seabiscuit]

43. I am an attorney, I've paid my dues for many years and I'm disappointed

in Fitz. It's coming up on 4 years now. It took Leon Jaworski less than a year for him and his grand jury to put together an ironclad case against Nixon. I find Fitz's delays inexcusable.

OTOH, I agree that the federal statute, which was rammed through by Republicans, is hopelessly unenforceable due to its deliberately shabbily constructed language. No one is going to be convicted of outing Plame under that statute as it stands.

Yet Fitz could have and should have moved a lot faster. And he could have named Cheney, Bush, Rove, Armitrage and others as co-sonspirators to treasonous conduct in outing a covert CIA operative for petty and perverse political ends. He has possessed enough evidence to do so for years now. I suspect he failed to cast a bigger net out of fear of some form of retaliation from the ruthless bastards in the administration. I'm not about to opine that he is part of some right-wing conspiracy to protect Bush and Cheney.

Hopefully, although he's been moving at a snail's pace, he will continue to lay the groundwork for some future grand jury to indict Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. after they leave office, though I've pretty much given up hope in Fitz by now.

[Seabiscuit]

44. Addendum:

Fitz probably couldn't have indicted Bush while Bush was a sitting President, but could have indicted all the others, even though Cheney, like Agnew before him, probably would have made Agnew's specious argument that a sitting Vice-President can't be indicted, and dragged that issue all the way up to the Supreme Court, delaying proceedings against him personally.

Bush could be indicted the day he leaves office, either as a result of impeachment (as would have happened with Nixon, but for the Ford pardon) or as a result of his term limit expiring.

Rove, Armitrage, and others should have been indicted a long time ago.

[Missy Vixen]

45. Mr. Armitage came forward before PJF was even appointed

>It took Leon Jaworski less than a year for him and his grand jury to put together an ironclad case against Nixon. I find Fitz's delays inexcusable.<

Did Leon Jaworski have another job while he was doing so? If I remember correctly, those who served in the position took a leave of absence from the firms they were employed by. Patrick Fitzgerald is still in charge of the Northern Illinois US Attorney's office, and supervises 149 attorneys the last time there was anything in the press about how many are in that office. He has a full-time job, as do the other five attorneys working with him on the CIA leak case investigation.

I'm sure Libby's refusal to cooperate in the investigation gummed things up a bit as well.

>he's been moving at a snail's pace<

I'd rather he continue moving at that snail's pace and methodically working his way up (as he's always done,) than to file charges that won't stick due to sloppy investigation or an abbreviated timetable.

Mr. Armitage approached the FBI, if I remember correctly, three months before Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed. I have no idea if he has immunity. He claims to have never sought the advice of an attorney since this matter began, but he would not be the first to say something untrue about his experiences in this matter.

Julie

[Seabiscuit]

46. I just know that

if I were offered the chance to take on a new case, and had 149 attorneys working for me, I wouldn't do so unless I knew my existing case load allowed me to give it the same priority as all other matters, and that I could prosecute the matter in a timely and efficient manner. That's what the California Bar requires of every attorney, and I'm certain it's no different in Illinois. I don't find the workload excuse tenable.

Of course, no one wants Fitz or any other attorney to file charges that won't stick or do a sloppy investigation, or to work on abbreviated timetable. But that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating processing a case like this within a year to two at most, or let someone else handle it. Under the Rules of Court in civil cases in California, attorneys have 1 year from the date of filing suit to get a case to trial. I realize this is a different kind of case, but almost 4 years and one guy charged with perjury and obstruction in a case where compromising national security by outing a CIA agent is involved, just doesn't cut the mustard for me.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Any bets as to whether Fitz will be the next Federal DA to be axed?

[MGKrebs]

4. Of course, Fitz can't touch Cheney or Bush,

but he sure seems to be inviting Congress to.

[rodeodance]

13. Congress is playing a bit too nice -----I know the prize is )*----yet this

nice stuff is dragging!

[rodeodance]

6. "Any sane person would think,....that any person involved in this would be fired,"

"Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that any person involved in this would be fired," Mr. Fitzgerald said.

The prosecutor's clear implication was that Mr. Bush failed to keep his word. Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, is still working at the White House despite having served as a source for two press accounts about Ms. Plame. A State Department official who leaked Ms. Plame's identity at least twice, Richard Armitage, resigned at the end of 2004. Mr. Libby, who quit after being indicted, has conceded discussing the CIA staffer with a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper.

[rodeodance]

7. k

[oasis]

8. Fitzmas is just around the corner.(nt)

[Garbo 2004]

9. Fitz's pt was Libby motivated by fear of losing job. RW Sun wants to make Fitz look poitically

motivated in his prosecution, playing politics in his closing. Hence, the headline and Gerstein's interpretation of what Fitz said. The Sun's playing to its RW mgt & audience.

Libby's team had previously leaked pretrial court info that had not yet been made public to the NY Sun and the Sun was an early attacker of Fitzgerald.

Fitz's point was that Libby was in trouble and he knew it. He lied to the investigation beginning in October 2003 to try to get out of legal and professional trouble. And also to cover up what was a OVP operation.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Good points about the NY Sun, Garbo! I think you're right about their

motives.

Fitzgerald's purpose was to show Libby's state of mind when he lied to the FBI (invented a conversation with newsman Russert that Russert had told him Plame's identity). Libby's motives to lie were twofold: 1) He was well aware at that point that outing Plame and the Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network could have caused DEATHS--and he had participated in it; and 2) His source of knowledge about Plame wasn't Russert--it was Cheney--he was covering for his boss. Both of these points were strongly established in evidence.

Also, Libby's lawyers had tried to trivialize the outings. For instance, they kept referring to top CIA agent Plame as "the wife." Fitzgerald really lit into them for this. He said, "She has a name. She is a person." It was a brilliant presentation, in which he laid out the case against Libby in the context of the whole story of Cheney & Co. "lying the nation into war." Libby's defense tried to make us believe that Wilson and Plame were minor matters in mid-July 2003. But the facts scream otherwise. They were obsessed with Wilson and Plame. Libby had some ten conversations with reporters and others (one of them, with Judith Miller, for two hours) over a one week period. Why? Because Wilson was saying they had "lied the nation into war." (Actually, I don't think that was the whole reason--or even the main reason--but this is as far into the conspiracy as Fitzgerald went).

What do I think is going to happen? A GJ report that names Cheney as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the outings of Plame and BJ. I think Fitzgerald already has enough evidence to do that (--and he may have even more that we can't see). Also, I think this may happen whether or not the jury convicts Libby. Fitzgerald presented a very strong, and very clear and well-organized case against Libby on lying and obstruction. And the defense was lousy--really lousy. (I found myself suspecting that Wells actually threw the case.) I think they will convict him. But even if they don't, I think the investigation will continue. Fitzgerald is a bulldog. He is not going to leave this alone. He believes Cheney ordered the outings of Plame/ BJ. And he is not the sort of man--or the sort of prosecutor--who would tolerate a crime of this magnitude in the White House.

He has special powers, special protection from interference by anyone, and he can call upon a DC grand jury at any time, for further inquiries or to write a report on the investigation. There is no end date on Fitzgerald's powers. And he has powers equal to the AG--and actually above the AG. The only person who can fire Fitzgerald is Bush. Under Jefferson's Rules, a GJ can submit a privileged bill of impeachment to the U.S. House. (A state legislature can do so also--and New Mexico's legislature just reported one out of committee.) I don't know if Fitzgerald will go that route, but I do think that he may think this is a matter for Congress.

Also--VERY IMPORTANT--this may be WHY he has not indicted any of the leakers--Rove, Armitage, Fleischer and Libby (for the leak itself). He may believe that they were under orders of the effective "commander in chief"--Cheney--during a time of war. It is Cheney that he is after. The mastermind (on the political end of this crime). And possibly Bush. The others were taking orders. (I think there is another side of it, having to do with Rumsfeld, and Pentagon OSP skulduggery--but Fitzgerald doesn't seem to have delved into that side of it.) ONLY Cheney and Bush had the power to peremptorily declassify Plame's identity (--if you construe their powers that broadly, which I don't--but in THEIR context...), and ONLY Cheney and Bush had the power to FUZZ OVER the facts about her identity, so that others could well have been confused about it. For instance, I feel pretty sure that Rove had been given assurances--probably by Cheney, or someone speaking for Cheney--that what he, Rove, was doing (outing Plame) was not illegal, and that Rove was probably being set up to take the fall. And if that was the case, then Fitzgerald seems to have done exactly the right thing--NOT indicting Rove--if his goal is to get at the chief perpetrator. I think Rove was under threat of indictment until he told the truth, whatever that was. Part of it was that he disclosed Plame's identity to columnist Novak. What else did he disclose in his long and repeated sessions with the GJ? I think we've seen, in the Libby trial, only a fraction of what Fitzgerald may know. The trial was focused on Libby's lying and obstruction. What of the larger investigation?

[POAS]

35. Don't forget the declassification by Bush

According to some the President may declassify anything at his discretion or may delegate that authority to others at his discretion. The leakers are only in trouble if they broke the law by leaking classified information. By declassifying Plames covert status at CIA the President or Vice, in secret, shielded the leakers from the law.

As for whether the leakers would be fired, and going from memory of the statments made at the time the investigation started, I believe the language was carefully parsed to imply that anyone who broke the law would be dealt with in an appropriate manner or that they would no longer be working in the White House. Of couse taken literally no unlawful leaking could take place if the identity of Plame was declassified and not working in the Whitehouse does not preclude working elsewhere within the executive branch, Pentagon, CIA or literally anywhere not physically in the Whitehouse.

[Garbo 2004]

40. If Bush had "waved his wand" re: Plame & Libby in 2003 thought Bush declassified a CIA

agent's identity, why then did Libby lie? There would be no reason to lie if Bush had "declassified" Plame's identity and Libby thought it was as valid as Bush's instant declassification of portions of the NIE Libby leaked to Judy Miller.

Fitzgerald didn't call one witness to the stand as Marcy Wheeler noted at FDL so this info didn't come in: in June 2003 IIRC Libby spoke with Edelman, an OVP aide, on the phone. Edelman started talking about Valerie Wilson and Libby hushed him, saying they couldn't discuss it on an unsecured phone, the CIA wouldn't like it.

That seems rather odd, since Libby has claimed not to know that her identity was classified. It showed that Libby was quite aware there was something sensitive about discussing Valerie Wilson. (As also evidenced by Libby's July conversation with Addington that did come into the trial.) Why didn't Fitzgerald use Edelman at trial? Did he figure he didn't need it for the case and was holding it in reserve for possible future use? Like possible leverage at a future date?

At any rate, if Bush had declassified Plame's identity with a wave of his imperial wand as some think and the Administration could argue that thus no crime was committed by leaking her name, and Libby knew that, then why would Libby lie about his actions? To this day Libby claims he didn't leak to Judy Miller. What would be the problem with telling the truth if Bush had declassified Plame's CIA identity? And why hasn't Libby claimed as a defense that Bush declassified Plame's identity? Instead, Libby's been adamnant that he didn't leak Plame's identity and furthermore that he wasn't told to do so.

Only logical answer is that Bush didn't declassify her identity.

[Garbo 2004]

42. 1. Fitz doesn't have the authority to issue a report on the investigation, he's not an Independent

Counsel. The IC law expired in 1999. Fitz addressed this point in his Oct 2005 press conference.

2. If the WH/OVP gang had been told and believed that Bush had waved his wand and "declassified" Plame's CIA identity, there would have been no reason to lie to investigators in 2003. No possible crime would had been committed and thus there would have been no reason to lie and risk prosecution.

That suggests to me that Bush didn't "declassify" her identity. No one in the Administration has claimed that he did. Libby knew that Plame's identity was sensitive, despite his claims to the contrary, and has never admitted to leaking to Judy Miller or asserted that the info was declassified and he was told to leak it.

Also, Rove admitted to investigators in Oct 2003 that he talked to Novak about Wilson's wife. Investigators reportedly thought he colluded with Novak on their stories but couldn't prove it. But Fitz knew Armitage and Rove were two of Novak's sources when he came on board in December 2003. What Rove didn't tell investigators about was that he leaked to Matt Cooper and that kept him going back to the grand jury.

[LeftHander]

14. Wow how quickly posters forget his Press conference...

When he announced the indictments on Libby....

he basically said that the main investigation was hampered by willful obstruction of justice by Mr. Libby in lying to investigators and the truth needed to be found. And if it took indictment of Libby and a trial to uncover the truth then so be it.

He said when you are in an investigation you are trying to uncover the truth. When someone lies and is discovered lying in the course of an investigation it clouds the facts and until,the truth is known the investigation is incomplete. Now in a court of law what will be seen is the truth. It will bode VERY BADLY for the WH if Libby is found guilty. With the truth uncovered and it was found that Libby was lying then his information is validated and the original investigation can continue.

Thus the "shadow" on Dick Cheney.

[POAS]

36. Agreed and

we will see if the investigation can now go forward. By impeaching the testimony of Libby and convicting him Fitz could now go back and instruct a Grand Jury to disregard any or all testimony given by Libby.

Additionally, I'm sure that Libby's lawyers are counselling him to strike a deal to get his sentence reduced upon conviction. If Libby then cooperates the heat will really be on the Whitehouse and on Cheney.

[EVDebs]

15. Cloud over vp, = Cancer on the Presidency as John Dean has said before

[bdamomma]

16. they need to be surgically removed

no one is above the law, can someone anyone tell these evil evil men that they are not above the law. Gee this sucks.

[JDPriestly]

27. I think that this all means that Fitzgerald thinks that

had Libby not lied, would Libby now tell the truth, then Fitzgerald would probably have the evidence to try and most likely convict Cheney (and possibly Bush) for having organized a conspiracy. As I recall, a conviction for criminal conspiracy requires proof that the conspirators agreed, possibly even tacitly, to perform a criminal act and that they also performed an overt act to put the agreement into action. I'm not using the right language, but I think that is the gist of it.

If Libby told the truth -- and I have the feeling that Fitzgerald does not think Libby is telling the whole truth even now -- Fitzgerald would have grounds to charge Cheney.

I wonder if Fitzgerald thinks Armitage has told the whole truth. I don't know, but I doubt that a grant of immunity protects against lies. I believe it usually only protects against prosecution only in so far as the person granted immunity cooperates and tells the truth as to the facts concerning which he or she has been granted immunity.

Long day-- I'm tired, so I don't know whether I am expressing myself clearly. I could even be just plain wrong. Any comments on my comment? I'm not a criminal lawyer. I'm just recalling what I learned in law school quite some time ago.

[EVDebs]

32. The real crimes here are the domestic spying and media coverups

Just as in Operation CHAOS and Operation Mockingbird, the domestic illegality of our spy agencies messing about in internal domestic matters in order to promote their hidden agendas remains the unspoken background story. Remember that Walter Pincus and Robert Woodward were defense witnesses for Libby. Both have direct ties to intelligence and probably haven't renounced any of those ties.

Carl Bernstein's Oct. 1977 Rolling Stone article "The CIA and The Media" needs to be updated. A new Church committee hearing needs to be held. The real truth needs to come out.

[Auggie]

18. Wonder how mainstream media will handle this tonight -- if at all

[Canuckistanian]

19. "Out of control prosecutor slams Commander-in-Chief"

At least on Faux News.

[Auggie]

21. LOL

[Nevernose]

28. This just in: Anna Nicole Smith still dead!

If we're lucky, on the bottom scroll:

"Prosecutor says that Libby boss may have known more ...Cheney categorizes disparaging remarks as 'unfounded' & 'offensive'"

[LuckyLib]

24. It's also important to remember that * himself said, on camera, that

anyone caught leaking in his administration would be fired. Haven't seen any heads roll yet. But the popcorn is waiting . . .

[Maryland Liberal]

25. Go High or Go Home

no use to stop halfway- he should have publicly called for the impeachment of the Bushie

[HuffleClaw]

30. the freepers will likely claim those comments are 'grounds for a mistrial'

count on it.

[sandrakae]

31. I hope he does a hell of a lot more then chide him.

[quiet.american]

38. Hello! I hate the word "chide."

Chide is what you do when you're trying to get your reluctant brother to help you mow the lawn.

This administration needs a lot more than "chiding."