Libby Denies Seeing Notes From Cheney

Libby Denies Seeing Notes From Cheney

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 20, 2006; Page A14

“Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the indicted former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, said in a court filing late yesterday that Libby did not see the notes Cheney inscribed on a key newspaper column criticizing the administration's rationale for invading Iraq until he was shown the annotations in the course of an FBI investigation.

The lawyers raised the issue to cast doubt on a claim by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in a court filing a week ago that the annotations "serve both to explain the context of and provide a motive for" Libby's statements and actions, which in turn brought about his indictment.” Cont…

“But Libby's lawyers, in a filing that amplifies Libby's previous requests for access to government documents, quoted from previously sealed grand jury testimony in which Libby said he had not seen the Cheney annotations until the FBI gave him a copy. They also state that Fitzgerald may have difficulty authenticating the annotations in court because he has already said he does not intend to call Cheney as a witness at Libby's trial.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052000176.html

*shadow government*

later today...

I believe this is the one they are referring to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1240858

*shadow government*

has been posted yet, I hope it is soon, it sounds like it should be interesting!

Early morning fuzziness. Even while I was posting I was thinking I didn't remember reading that bit in the filing and assummed I missed it. Perhaps STB will find the correct one when it is posted.

*shadow government*

to the research thread, it is an invaluable tool and becoming more and more essential every filing. Thanks, btw, for posting the NYT. I would not have known there was another Libby filing at all without it.

Inquiring minds want to know . . .

The man is indicted for being a liar, under the most critical of circumstances, and with an enormous issue riding on his choice as to whether or not to tell the truth. He saw fit to continue his deception, in the face of accumulating evidence to the contrary, and actively tried to prevent the investigation from going forward.
Now, he and his lawyers expect to be believed? Gimme a break!!

It's the defense lawyer's job to sow confusion and doubt.

Even when their client is guilty.

I have faith in Fitz. He's really doing this right and I'm
impressed.

coming from such highly paid, well respected law firm?

"They also state that Fitzgerald may have difficulty authenticating the annotations in court because he has already said he does not intend to call Cheney as a witness at Libby's trial."

Call me crazy but I believe there is such a thing as hand writing analysis that can easily authenticate that the writing is Cheney's without having to call Cheney as a witness. All they need is another document known to be in Cheney's handwriting which, given he is VP, I am sure they are out there not to mention documents the OVP would have handed over to Fitzgerald earlier.

Both Libby's & Cheney's. I suppose the way FitzG. could get it into evidence is to ask another witness if they were privy to it. Have we seen a list of the witnesses he will call? Also, is Libby going to testify? I don't see how he has a hope without doing so, and if he does he could be confronted with the document then.

*shadow government*

answered this in his indictment. In the October 28, 2005 document, Team Libby need look no farther than page 4:

"5. On or about June 9, 2oo3, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names 'Wilson' and 'Joe Wilson' on the documents."

Ha!

Get in those handwriting experts Scooter wanted ot use on Judy's notebook!

Do you think he'll testify?

*shadow government*

Scooter is coming much closer to making a deal. Something about "Napolean in rags" and the sweet talk that he used ....

:kick:

It doesn't matter if Libby ever actually saw that particular piece of paper. The notes demonstrate Cheney's frame of mind, and it's obvious that Libby would be aware of Cheney's thoughts on the matter.

And they will all come into play.

Welcome to DU

*shadow government*

regarding his purpose for submitting this into evidence. Also, there are other articles as well, including Kristof's.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Your Honor, the one would be but not for the truth. The Wilson op-ed itself, which started this sort of lift-off, was achieved on July 6 where Wilson wrote what I found in Niger we will offer, and we can talk about one, redactions, and two, instructions to the jury that they're not offered for the truth. But it is precisely what that article is that causes the events of June 14. On July 6 the article is printed. On July 7 in response to that, the office of vice president sends some talking points to Mr. Fleischer about the vice president didn't know about this trip before. In response to that, Mr. Libby and Mr. Fleischer have lunch and that's when we allege the discussion about Wilson's wife was. It is responding to the criticism that resulted from the Wilson article that led to the events of July 6 to July 14 when most of the relevant events in this indictment took place. In fact, we will offer an article that was sort of annotated by people who read it. And so my point being but it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We can talk about redactions or instructions but that's what Mr. Libby discusses. He says his article implies that we would have known about it but he didn't. And we're not going to dispute the fact in 2002 neither Mr. Libby nor the vice president knew about it. That's my point. That's why we plead in the indictment that the trip was done at the CIA's behest and they reported to the CIA. So when Mr. Wilson's says, I assume the vice president heard about it back then, we disagree. We agree with Mr. Wells he didn't.

*shadow government*

of that hearing was better. I'm sure Fitz meant July 14 and not June 14. But anyway, Libby's plan of defending against the world, and not focusing on the charges is not gonna fly. Fitz wants to talk about only two things, both of which occured after the article was published.

their filings are preparatory not only for the charges he is currently facing but also seem as if they are going further in preparation for further charges they feel might be possibly be laid in the future.

It will be very interesting to read the pdf of this filing when it gets posted on DU to see what was actually submitted around this aspect:

Libby said he had not seen the Cheney annotations until the FBI gave him a copy. They also state that Fitzgerald may have difficulty authenticating the annotations in court because he has already said he does not intend to call Cheney as a witness at Libby's trial.”

On the one hand they are saying because Libby never saw it, the document has no relevance to Libby's case yet they ADD the comment regarding authenticity. The way the Post has written the article, without a link to the actual filing, it is hard for me to get a read on it.

But so far Judge Walton has forestalled that scheme.


*shadow government*

filing has been made publicly available so it can be added to the research thread!

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_060518_CheneyNotes.pdf

(10 pages)

I don't know how to add it.

I have pm'd STB with the link so it can be added to the research thread.

in a way in which one would see it as part of the main body of the filing. It is this part of their article:

"They also state that Fitzgerald may have difficulty authenticating the annotations in court because he has already said he does not intend to call Cheney as a witness at Libby's trial.”

There is a big difference between this being a footnote and being in the main body of the filing, imo.

There is also this interesting comment re the "jury pool":

"Finally, our focus on Mr. Wilson’s accusations does not signal an intention to
use this case to reargue the reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. Given the jury pool,
such an approach would be a foolish and self-destructive trial strategy."

An interesting thing to have in their response to Fitzgerald, imo.

Good to have the info.

*shadow government*

They had a long discussion about whether trying to refute Wilson's statements would in effect be "trying the war" and whether that was a wise move considering the defense was goig up against a DC jury. The defense replied they knew what they were in for and agreed that it wasn't such a smart move.

pool, intimating they would not be fair if the issue of the reason (WMD) for going to war were raised as a defense strategy.

but I think that he's acknowledging that it would be foolhardy to try and defend the war with a jury pool drawn from a city that voted 90% for Kerry. :)

I did find it interesting that he chose to mention it in the motion, though. Why bother?

I think that the redacted parts Fitz wants are Cheney's notes. I don't think he ever intended a jury or the public to see them, but since Wells got his request to see the articles, Fitz had to show the copy he had -- the one with the notes. Why would Fitz want parts of publicly available articles redacted? Makes no sense. He's saving that for Rove or Cheney, I would think.