"Fish Or Cut Bait": What Libby May Be Fishing For

[Me.]

Fire Dog Lake's Take on the 32 pages:

Fish Or Cut Bait

“I do wonder if Team Libby is fishing for some particular piece of information here -- potentially about someone who has testified adversely to Libby's or some other Administration official's interest. If there is some mole who has been feeding information to Fitz and his team, as some have speculated, this sort of fishing expedition might be one way to get a hint as to who that might be.” Cont..

“On pages 13-14, Fitz lays out more reasons why he feels that the Libby requests are tangential at best, and an attempt at overreach for a potential dismissal as a "greymail" tactic. This is especially true in the arguments advanced regarding Valerie Wilson's employment status -- and Fitz' argument that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the charges Libby faces (perjury, obstruction, false statements), and that Team Libby is using this as a pretext for a vast discovery fishing expedition” cont….

“Based on my knowledge of the case law involved (Brady, Giglio, Poindexter, George and others), Fitz has a very good chance of winning his arguments. But, as with anything in court, nothing is certain until you get the written ruling.” Cont…

“One bit that amused me was on pages 28 and 29, wherein Fitz argues that Libby would not be entitled to information regarding Valerie Wilson's covert employment status unless he could show that he (Libby) had been privy to such documentary proof at the time that his alleged crimes were occurring. It's your basic "put up or shut up" response from Fitz -- but it requires that Libby either let it go (because he did not see such documentation, and thus admit that it has no relevence whatsoever to his state of mind at the time of indictment) or that Libby fesses up to knowing that she was covert (which would open a whole new level of speculation, now wouldn't it?) or that both sides will just keep on whistling past this issue altogether.

Never play poker with Fitz. That's all I'm saying.”

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

[H2O Man]

1. The Fitzgerald paper indicates

two things: first, with the Brady requests (much of the request for information falls under Brady) is a rather desperate attempt to "grey mail" government agencies other than the prosecutor/ DoJ; and second, that Libby is preparing for future court proceedings, beyond his upcoming convictions. That includes not only the appeal of five convictions, but -- and this is very important -- they are laying the groundwork for a potential plea that will result in "conspiracy" charges for some from the WHIG.

edit to add:

[Me.]

2. Now That Is Hugh, As They Say

Laying the groundwork for future charges including conspiracy. That says a lot.

[H2O Man]

3. Libby's attorneys

are not dumb. Very much the opposite. When a short time after his indictment, the fellow with the background in "grey mail" was brought on board, it signaled a recognition that Fitzgerald has Libby nailed to the wall. It is a tactic that is as much, or more, for future appeals as it is for clogging the system.

[H2O Man]

4. Ramblings: part two

There is such an emphasis on the conspiracy end of things by Libby's team, it is uncanny. It is more obvious a message than "they are connected at the roots, and their leaves turn."

[Jazzgirl]

5. So say the Aspens....

n/t :evilgrin:

[Me.]

6. Once You State It

It becomes so obvious, when everyone thought what was obvious was that he was doing this to throw up roadblocks to FitzG., it really is a very different chess game, to get back to that thread of yours.

[H2O Man]

8. I'm fascinated by the Brady v Maryland

information. That case and its progeny provides that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. <373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1186, 10 L. Ed. 2nd at 218>" More, it usually is invoked where information is discovered after trial "which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense," . It often involves evidence that could impeach the testimony of a government (prosecution) witness, in cases where the reliability of the witness may be determinative of a defendant's gult or innocence (see cases including Giglio v United States; United States v Dansker; and others commonly used in appeals on Brady violations).

In 1975, Myron Beldock filed a motion based on a Brady violation in the Carter case. The New Jersey Supreme Court (which at that time was widely recognized as the best federal court in the USA, perhaps ever) looked at the "new" evidence. A tape had been made in 1966 of Paterson NJ detectives questioning a potential witness to the triple murder that Rubin Carter and John Artis were convicted of. It is made 3 months after the crime. The lead detective shows the witness photos of Carter and Artis; the witness says repeatedly that he can not identify them. The detective mentions that the man, who has served time in jail for a variety of offenses, has 9 outstanding warrents, and was caught for a burglary and a robbery on the night in question. He promises to go to the highest authorities in the state to have those charges dropped, and to advocate the fellow get a $10,500 reward if he IDs Rubin Carter. The guy agrees. The detective schools him, despite his inability to get the story straight. The witness keeps telling the detective the car he saw was not Carter's. The detective promises to get him a white probation officer if he identifies Carter's car, instead of the black one he has at the time.

The NJ Supreme Court rules that the fact the prosecutor failed to turn this tape over, and indeed told the jury that the witness that the witness identified Carter and Artis at the scene of the crime, and that there were no offers to reward him by dropping or reducing charges, or offering reward money. This is a good example of what a Brady violation is. It is distinct from what Mr. Libby is claiming.

[upi402]

7. what is a "greymail tactict"?

[H2O Man]

9. Grey mail

is a softer version of black mail. It is trying to intimidate the target, in this case the federal government, by saying in essence "if you prosecute me for what I have done, I will expose your crimes, too." It is legal hardball. Mr. Libby's defense team has some extremely talented players on it -- it is as much a "dream team" as what OJ had -- and they are making clear they are willing to expose others to "defend" Scooter.

[Me.]

10. As You Know Better Than Anyone

They are barking up the wrong prosecutor. Also, they are sending a warning shot to, Cheney (?) (Will it work?) Rove (?) and the nearly invisible Card (?).

[H2O Man]

11. Defense attorneys

are a funny lot. It's not like hiring attorneys for anything else, where one outlines for them what the project is, almost like hiring a plumber. Defense attorneys tend to tell their clients what the strategy will be.

It's hard to imagine Libby deciding at this point to turn on Cheney. That isn't realistic. But it's harder to imagine his attorneys sharing his concern for his ex-boss's well-being. They would not rule out any option right now.

[Me.]

12. Right Now It Seems It Could Go Either Way With Libby

If Cheney keeps Comstock fundraising for him, Libby will continue to protect Cheney. But long cases with high powered attorneys require lots of money, more than 5 million if they keep pushing those billable hours. If they get tired of funding Libby he may get desperate. Of course the possibility of an impending prison term could also affect his mood. He should listen to his lawyers.