Thursday, April 13, 2006

Fitz

Since Patrick Fitzgerald refuses to inform the Libby defense team, the Court, or the country whether Valerie Plame was, in fact, an undercover CIA operative, here's a suggestion to Libby's legal team: Seek the deposition of Valerie Plame, force Fitzgerald's hand (he will oppose it as irrelevant to his case), and explain to the Court that the deposition relates directly to Fitzgerald's October 28, 2005 public statement to, among others, potential jurors when he brought the charges. Fitzgerald said, in part:

... Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

... The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

Here’s the press conference in full.

In October, Fitzgerald felt this "context" was very important, even though his charges had nothing to do with it. The defense team should hammer this now, through the trial, and in its closing argument. Not only is Libby's credibility at issue, but so too is Fitzgerald's. We can split hairs over this word "classified." Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that Plame was undercover. Technically, every federal employee is classified as something, whether he works at the CIA or the Agriculture Department. But if she wasn't undercover, then what other kind of classification would have merited an investigation of this sort, and Fitzgerald's dire warnings about protecting Plame's identity? I think a jury (or at least one juror) will be as perplexed about the pursuit of this case as many of the rest of us are.

Fitzgerald made another point at his press conference which we now know to be inaccurate. He said, in part:

... Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

It is now believed that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage may have been the first official to have mentioned Plame to a reporter, namely Bob Woodward. Among other things, this raises questions about the competence of the investigation. If the focus, at least originally, was on the revelation of Plame’s name, Fitzgerald apparently failed to determine the original source at the time he indicted Libby. You would think that the number two officials at the State Department would have been a worthy witness.

As an aside, I mentioned when the charges were first brought that the obstruction count is very odd. The fact is that Libby’s alleged false testimony did not prevent Fitzgerald from pursuing his investigation and Fitzgerald provides no information in the indictment showing otherwise.

Now, none of this is to say that Libby is in the clear or that his testimony was materially false—although I’m even scratching my head now as to whether his testimony was relevant to any particular crime, which is an element of perjury which must be met. Time will tell.

04/13 01:39 PM