What's Up Patrick J. Fitzgerald?

[dana]

Re: Jay's comment:

"One day at a time...".

Quite. But the argument seems to be that, the Federal Prosecutor, knowing what he does [bolstered possibly by additional CIA input], it would not be in Fitzgerald's interest to stop short of implicating precisely those players whose persistence might enable Bush to hand out pardons like trick-or-treat candy.

The point of my previous post was to suggest that possibility. Fitzgerald was handed a mandate by James Comey, US Deputy General, to "do what is right", and Fitzgerald is known for getting to the bottom of matters.

Comely speaking <snip> :

"I have today delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all the approval authorities that will be necessary to ensure that he has the tools to conduct a completely independent investigation; that is, that he has the power and authority to make whatever prosecutive judgments he believes are appropriate".

full source, here
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/comey123003doj-pconf.html

The next few weeks may have interesting things in store for us, although I am under no illusion that what we're to witness will represent a triumph. We may be delighted to see the crumbling of the current administration, but there's a full set of shark's teeth poised and ready to take its place.

What could turn out to be heartening is that there may be rare vestiges in the Federal legal system that will distinguish themselves from the turncoats to whom we've grown accustomed.

That is reason for hope.

[michelle]

Let's Make a Deal : The Legalese of PlameGate
Tuesday :: October 18, 2005
talkleft.com

Reuters is speculating that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald may be offering putative defendants one last chance to make a deal in the Valerie Plame investigation.

The prosecutor investigating the outing of a covert CIA operative has yet to say whether he will bring charges, but he has decided to announce decisions in the case in Washington rather than Chicago, where he is based, his spokesman said on Monday....It is unusual for Fitzgerald's office to offer comment on any aspect of the case and Monday's statement led some observers to wonder if it might be a signal that a decision was imminent or that Fitzgerald was trying to increase pressure on potential targets to cut a deal.

It has to be a tempting offer for several of them.
talkleft.com/new_archives/012778.html


Update added from the velvetrevolution.us to the
article above. [in case you want to pull this up separately]
10/7/05

VR ANALYSIS OF THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES DEMONSTRATES THAT SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ARE FACING THE PROSPECT OF LIFE IN PRISON FOR THE OUTING OF CIA AGENT VALERIE PLAME UNLESS THEY HURRY UP AND TURN ON EACH OTHER

www.velvetrevolution.us/Content/Rove/Rove.php



White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly
USNews.com
Posted 10/18/05
By Paul Bedard

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18whwatch.htm?track=rss

[michelle]

Fitzgerald Launches Website

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has just launched his own website. Could this mean he won't be packing up his office? Can we look forward to a list of indictments at his new website?

Here it is:
www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

[michelle]

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Notes Show

By DAVID JOHNSTON, RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DOUGLAS
JEHL
Published: October 24, 2005
NY Times
tinyurl.com/ck39l

** THOUGHTS **

Steve Clemons breaks it down in The Washington Note:
tinyurl.com/7glqr

Simply put: Cheney knew. Cheney lied. Lying is
unacceptable.

Related -- The conservatives' onslaught of smears and
mud against Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has
clearly begun. Not only has President Bush himself
sung Fitzgerald's praises, but others are too...

FITZGERALD: TOOL OF THE LEFT (bad headline for what is
essentially a defense of Fitzgerald)
Andy McCarthy, National Review Online
10/24/05, 10:32pm
tinyurl.com/dacn7 (scroll down, those NRO
conservatives make these things hard to find)

An Unsung Hero
by Armando, DailyKos.com
Sun Oct 23, 2005 at 09:06:18 PM PDT

[michelle]

Wed. 10/26/05
This is from yesterday afternoon:

October 25, 2005
Indictments Coming Tomorrow; Targets Received Letters Today
www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html

Indictments Coming Tomorrow; Targets Received Letters Today An uber-insider source has just reported the following to TWN (since confirmed by another independent source):
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will
be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

The shoe is dropping. More soon.-- Steve Clemons

Update: further commentary from CBS's John Roberts:
BREAKING: CBS To Report Fitzgerald Will Make His Decision Known Tomorrow
From the CBS Evening News, to air at 6:30PM:
thinkprogress.org/2005/10/25/decision-tommorow/

[michelle]

Fitzgerald Going Back to Grand Jury
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Friday 18 November 2005

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present evidence next week to a grand jury in his two year-old investigation into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in the hopes of securing a criminal indictment against an undetermined number of senior officials in the Bush administration for playing some sort of role in the leak, attorneys who have been working on this case since its inception said.

Adding a new wrinkle in the ongoing drama surrounding a federal probe into the Plame Wilson leak, Bob Woodward, the assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, disclosed that he testified under oath this week before Fitzgerald, stating that he too was told about Plame Wilson’s CIA status in June 2003 by an administration official.

Plame Wilson had recommended that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the administration’s pre-war Iraq intelligence, be sent to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country. President Bush had cited the Iraq-uranium claims in his January 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson had told reporters privately in May 2003 that he had been the CIA’s special envoy sent to Niger to look into that rumor, reporting back to the CIA that the charges were false.

Woodward’s testimony contained information about several individuals at the White House that led Fitzgerald directly back to another grand jury, the substance of which sources would not divulge saying it could taint the case. Sources said the evidence involved additional aides in the Vice President’s office as well as senior officials who were part of a clandestine faction known as the White House Iraq Group, which was set up by President Bush’s Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August 2002 to "market" the Iraq war to the public via selective leaks to major newspapers about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program.

In January 2004, Fitzgerald sent the White House subpoenas seeking documents from July 6 to July 30, 2003 of the little-known White House Iraq Group. Now, according to sources, he’s going to use that evidence in his grand jury proceedings, which may unintentionally shed some light on how the Niger claims ended up in Bush’s State of the Union address.

Read the rest at:
www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111805A.shtml

[michelle]

BREAKING | Jason Leopold:
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him.

[michelle]

BREAKING | Jason Leopold:
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041506X.shtml

Jason Leopold reports that on Friday, May 12, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of themeeting said Saturday morning.

[DT1]

Update:
What's up with Patrick J. Fitzgerald?
He's a spineless tool who folded like a lawnchair,that's what's up...

Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case


June 13, 7:49 AM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON (AP) - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election now focused on stopping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in this November's elections.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Rove testified five times before a grand jury, most recently in April.

Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said the White House official "is elated" and said that "we're done."

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration's pursuit of war in Iraq.

Rove, who most recently appeared before a grand jury in April, has admitted he spoke with columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in the days before they published Plame's name in July 2003.


Rove, however, did not originally tell prosecutors about his conversation with Cooper, only revealing it after his lawyer discovered a White House e-mail that referred to it.

Fitzgerald was investigating whether Rove lied or obstructed justice in failing to initially disclose the conversation. The presidential aide blamed a faulty memory and sought to testify before the grand jury after finding the e-mail to correct his testimony.

The threat of indictment had hung over Rove, even as Rove was focusing on the arduous task of halting Bush's popularity spiral and keeping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in November elections.

Fitzgerald's investigation has been under way since the start of the 2004 election, and the decision not to indict Rove is certain to cheer Republicans concerned about Bush's low approval ratings and the prospects of a difficult 2006 congressional election.

"The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and (Sen.) Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty," Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends" show Tuesday morning.


Democrats, on the other hand, had no reason to cheer the development.

"He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," said Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, speaking Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Rove has been at Bush's sides since his days as Texas governor and was the architect of Bush's two presidential election victory. A political strategist, Rove assumed new policy responsibilities inside the White House in 2005 as deputy chief of staff.

However, as part of the shake-up brought by new White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, Rove shed those policymaking duties earlier this year to return to full time politics.

Fitzgerald's case against Libby is moving toward trial, as the two sides work through pretrial issues such as access to classified documents.

Libby, 55, was charged last October with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned and when he subsequently told three reporters about CIA officer Valerie Plame. He faces five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Plame's identity was exposed eight days after her husband, Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that the U.S. government had manipulated prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi nuclear threat.

With Rove's fate now decided, other unfinished business in Fitzgerald's probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodwind information about Plame.

Woodwind says his source, who he has not publicly identified, provided the information about Wilson's wife, several weeks before Novak learned of Plame's identity. The Post reporter, who never wrote a story, was interviewed by Fitzgerald late last year.

Maybe Turd-blossom will sue for injuries and mental angiuish for getting his wrist slapped.
Is anyone suprised by this?I'm not.
Looks like these sorry bastards really are above the law.
Absolutely disgusting...

[michelle]

Special Counsel Under Attack

By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 05 September 2006

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald and his investigation of the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame are under attack by multiple mainstream media organizations acting simultaneously. The reports are - at best - shoddy journalism and at worst a deliberate attempt to bury one of the most powerful political news stories in US history.

Friday, September 1st, began with perhaps one of most curious stories I have ever seen published. "End of an Affair," the unsigned editorial published by the Washington Post, was a bizarre fusillade against not only Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, but Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as well. The story begged a motive. The day ended with the New York Times blatantly trying to ignite a media stampede through Fitzgerald's office with their "news" piece authored by David Johnston titled "New Questions About Inquiry in CIA Leak." Again, motive conspicuously absent.

All of this followed closely on the heels of what was heralded as a revelation by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and The Nation's David Corn. Isikoff and Corn - who will shortly release a book on the subject - purportedly led American journalism out of the darkness by reporting that former State Department official Richard Armitage was columnist Robert Novak's primary source for the information on Valerie Plame's CIA status. This apparently provided enough ammunition for both the Times and the Post to declare Fitzgerald's investigation dead on arrival, and ill-conceived to boot.

A startling decision on its face. The information on Armitage was hardly new: it had been reported months ago by several news agencies, including Truthout and the New York Daily News. Further, Fitzgerald's investigation/prosecution is hardly dead, as both the Times and Post are well aware. So why the deliberate attempt to kill the story?

The threat to the White House posed by Fitzgerald's investigation is abundantly clear, but Fitzgerald threatens another powerful institution in his pursuit of the Plame truth, America's multibillion-dollar commercial news industry. The threat is not abstract or academic, it's quite real. For undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame to have been "outed," someone had to reveal her identity, but someone else had to publish the information. Enter the US Fourth Estate - all rights intact.

Fitzgerald viewed the reporters and publications who published classified details of Plame's role with the CIA as little better than those who supplied the information to them. That became abundantly clear on July 6th, 2005, when Fitzgerald persuaded federal Judge Thomas Hogan to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller on contempt of court charges for refusing to testify as to the identity of her source for the Plame information. TIME Magazine's Matt Cooper might well have ended up as Miller's cell-mate had he not, reluctantly and with great fanfare, decided to cooperate with the Special Counsel.

In all, Miller spent 85 days in jail before deciding she really wasn't cut out for martyrdom and rolling over on her source, with his permission of course - not Richard Armitage, but Scooter Libby. Cooper likewise got the green light from his source and revealed an even bigger fish - again not Armitage, but White House power broker Karl Rove.

Fitzgerald sent shock waves through the highest levels of the most powerful news organizations in the country with his hardball pursuit of the truth in the Plame case. From his perspective, the outing of Valerie Plame was not only an attack on the career of Plame - and her work group - but a deliberate compromising of their mission and personal safety as well. One justice department official I spoke to called it "treason." Valerie Plame's assignment and that of her group was WMDs. It was the very thing the Bush administration professed to be their highest priority. While Valerie Plame risked her life to combat WMD threats, Bush administration officials made speeches and in the end, many federal law enforcement personnel believe, betrayed her and her group.

Fitzgerald showed no patience with members of the press he viewed as instruments in an attack on the federal law-enforcement family as a whole. He wanted to leave an indelible impression that they too would be held accountable. This does not sit well with the overlords of American journalism. They view this as an attack on the freedom of the press, and the jailing of Judith Miller as an act of intimidation against the entire journalism fraternity.

Whether righteous or misguided in their ire toward Fitzgerald's perceived attacks on them, the US commercial press has abandoned objectivity in their reporting of the Plame investigation. Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing, there are multiple individuals under examination, and right now US commercial press can't bring themselves to say it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can send comments to t r u t h o u t Executive Director Marc Ash at: [e-mail].

Source: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090506Z.shtml

[michelle]

Media want documents on Fitzgerald's subpoenas in CIA leak case
The Associated Press
Published: December 22, 2006

I wonder why the media is getting so nervous all of a sudden. This could become interesting.....Michelle

WASHINGTON: Two news organizations are asking a federal judge to unseal documents in the case of a CIA agent whose name was leaked, arguing that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never needed the testimony of reporters who were threatened with jail time because he knew the source of the leak all along.

The Associated Press and Dow Jones, in court papers filed this week, asked for the release of the sworn statements Fitzgerald used to justify subpoenas for New York Times reporter Judith Miller — who was jailed in 2005 for refusing to testify — and for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Fitzgerald wanted the reporters help in his investigation of the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify. Cooper testified under a court order.

"Recently the public learned that the special counsel's pursuit of those reporters was entirely unnecessary for him to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's name to Mr. Novak," lawyers for the news services wrote.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has acknowledged being Novak's source but said it was a passing, inadvertent conversation. He also said he told Fitzgerald about the conversation as soon as the investigation began.

Lawyers for the news organizations said the public has the right to know why Fitzgerald testified that he needed the testimony of reporters to continue the investigation. The only way to know that, the lawyers argued, is to unseal Fitzgerald's affidavits and the court's full legal opinion on the issue.

No one was charged with the leak. Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was charged with lying to investigators and to grand jurors. He is scheduled to go on trial in January.

Source: www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/22/america/NA_GEN_US_CIA_Leak.php

[michelle]

Lawyer who asked Scott McClellan whether the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name might be considered an act of treason plunges to his death in apparent 'suicide.' Sanford seemed happy and had made many plans for this week and in coming months. Sanford was making plans for his future recently and was very active in the community. Does this seem to you like the actions of one about to commit suicide? Just wondering......Michelle

Lawyer falls to death at hotel
Seaside: Police suspect Paul Sanford committed suicide
Posted on Wed, Dec. 27, 2006
By JULIA REYNOLDS
Herald Staff Writer

In what police describe as a "probable" suicide leap, a prominent Monterey Bay Area attorney fell at least nine floors to his death at the Embassy Suites Hotel Monterey Bay in Seaside the morning before Christmas.

Shortly before 9:30 a.m. Sunday, officers found the body of Aptos attorney Paul Sanford in the west end of the hotel lobby, where he had landed on a large ventilation grate.

Police Capt. Steve Cercone said horrified guests were eating breakfast in the atrium at the time, and a number of witnesses saw Sanford fall from somewhere between the 9th and 12th floors.

"I'm at a loss for words," said Sanford's friend and business associate, Monterey attorney Shawn Mills. "Paul really had his fingers in a lot of different pies. He was from the East Coast, and I used to call him our 'West Coast Kennedy.'"

In addition to running his criminal defense practice in Capitola, Sanford was active in community organizations and hosted several independent radio shows in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties.

For several years, he was programs supervisor at the Volunteer Center in Santa Cruz and a teacher at the Monterey College of Law, where Mills said Sanford was an alumnus who mentored many students.

Sanford recently purchased his mother's home in Pebble Beach, and Mills said his friend planned to retire there one day.

Sanford was also active in the national arena. He appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 beside Elk Grove resident Michael Newdow when he argued unsuccessfully that the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

A passionate believer in "a dynamic Constitution," Sanford always carried a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his pocket, Mills said.

"He was a champion of the downtrodden, he represented homeless people in Santa Cruz, and fought for free speech," Mills said. "He did a run across America. You name it he's done it. This is a real shock and a loss to the community."

Mills said Sanford decided in recent years to add journalism to his many occupations.

Almost immediately, he caused a stir after he joined the White House Press Corps in 2005, making waves as the first reporter to ask then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan whether the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name might be considered an act of treason.

"There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove," Sanford asked. "The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?"

McClellan was apparently flustered by the question and replied that "those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide."

The White House incident sparked controversy after Beltway bloggers incorrectly described Sanford as a reporter for the Air America radio network. At the time, he was associated with Watsonville radio station KOMY, an Air America affiliate, and Sanford told reporters he never claimed to work for Air America.

Sanford eventually filed suit against station owner Michael Zwerling after Zwerling was reported as saying Sanford had not been authorized to represent the station as a reporter, a statement Sanford refuted.

Mills represented Sanford in that suit, which was scheduled to begin in Santa Cruz County Superior Court in February. Mills said he did not know if the case will continue after Sanford's sudden death.

Although the dispute with Zwerling caused Sanford a great deal of stress at the time, Mills said his friend was feeling fine about it and believed he would soon be vindicated in court.

Sanford and Mills also have hosted the "Paul and Shawn Show" on Saturdays at Seaside radio station KRXA, where they covered last fall's election and interviewed former Salinas mayor and now Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, Pacific Grove Mayor Dan Cort and others.

In 2002, Sanford inadvertently found himself at the center of a controversy in Santa Cruz County when his independent election fundraising was characterized in the Santa Cruz Sentinel as last-minute "developer" contributions on behalf of supervisor candidate Mark Primack. Primack lost to incumbent Mardi Wormhoudt by fewer than 600 votes.

Friends and associates expressed disbelief at the news of Sanford's death and that it was ruled a suicide, saying Sanford seemed happy and had made many plans for this week and in coming months. Mills said he and Sanford recently decided to open a shared law office to serve Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, something Sanford was looking forward to doing.

He and Sanford spoke on the phone "around four or five times a day," Mills said, and the two had just spoken on Thursday, "tweaking a marketing plan" for their new law practice before Mills went out of town for the Christmas holiday.

"I just don't know what happened since Thursday. There was nothing on the horizon there to know this was going to happen," Mills said. "We were going to get together this week."

Mills said he had spoken to Sanford's wife, Paula, and that she also was in shock. He said Sanford, a father of two, was a devoted family man.

"This is a horrible thing for his family. He would never have intentionally put his family through that trauma. Something's not right, it doesn't make sense."

Police said that before Sanford fell, hotel housekeepers saw him pacing the hallway of an upper floor. Cercone said Sanford's car was parked next to the hotel, and he was not checked in as a guest.

Police declined to state exactly why they ruled the case a suicide.

Mills said he and Sanford often met at Chili's restaurant next to Embassy Suites Hotel Monterey Bay because the KRXA studio was nearby.

Mills said Sanford should be remembered for his volunteer work in the local community. "People don't like to work for free, and Paul worked for ideology. He didn't like the attention a lot. The attention he's going to get now would upset him."

Julia Reynolds can be reached at 648-1187 or [e-mail].

Source: www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/16326502.htmhttp://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/16326502.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney will testify in Plame leak case
RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday December 19, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney will is set to be a witness for the defense in the case against former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to a report filed by the Associated Press and a statement obtained by RAW STORY.

"We're calling the vice president," the news agency quotes attorney Ted Wells as saying in court. Wells represents Libby, who is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

"We have cooperated fully in this matter," a statement released by Cheney's spokeswoman read, "and will continue to do so. In fairness to the parties involved, and as we have stated previously, we are not going to comment further on a legal preceeding."

The charges stem from an investigation by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into how the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame came to be revealed in the press. The undercover operative's name appeared in a column by conservative columnist Robert Novak just one week after a New York Times column by her husband, ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush Administration's handling of pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

Famed reporters Judith Miller and Tim Russert are also expected to testify, though on behalf of the prosecution. An audiotaped interview of former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage conducted by Bob Woodward is also considered likely to be subpoenaed.
Source: www.rawstory.com/news/2006/AP_Cheney_to_be_called_as_1219.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, 2007 could be a very good year.... Bush is bracing for new scrutiny --White House hiring lawyers in expectation of Democratic probes 26 Dec 2006 President [sic] Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas:
Bush is bracing for new scrutiny
White House hiring lawyers in expectation of Democratic probes
Originally published December 26, 2006
Go to: www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.investigate26dec26,0,7071390.story

[DT1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a lawyer, your most valuable commodity in terms of courtroom and professional currency is your reputation for honesty, integrity and sticking to the agreed upon rules and the Law,
whatever the stakes of your case at bar. This morning, that question came running headlong
like an oncoming train into the legal team representing Scooter Libby.

To set the scene, prior to the testimony of Craig Schmall, the CIA briefer for Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby, there had been a series of hearings and motions filed by the government, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, and Libby's legal team, primarily led in these matters by John Cline and Ted Wells, over the last few months preceding the trial. Judge Walton heard arguments on these matters under the CIPA rules and regulations, and then issued orders and memoranda laying out the procedures by which any of this information -- relating to highly classified national security documents and intelligence -- could be admitted, if at all, in the course of these legal proceedings.

In order to introduce the "memory defense" that Libby's legal team wants to use to defend Libby-
the "my difficult job made me lie and forget" defense.

Libby himself will have to take the stand because it is ultimately his memories which are at issue in terms of his state of mind and his alleged flashoods to the FBI and the grand jury. During Mr. Schmall's testimony, the Libby defense team is trying to slip that memory defense and the national security information which has already been ruled, in part, to be very limitedly admissible, if at all, into the minds of the jury through a back door and a completely unrelated witness.

In effect, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued this morning, to "bootstrap" the evidence and the arguments into the case.

I can certainly understand wanting to defend your client with every legal weapon in your arsenal. I can also understand feeling constrained in terms of your defense because national security considerations require you to be circumspect in how you can or cannot introduce certain evidence into the trial proceedings. But the CIPA hearings in this matter occurred over a series of weeks, months even, and the Libby legal team has had quite some time ot work out their witness questions and other strategies to overcome this obstacle.

In fact, Judge Walton has bent over backward in a number of his rulings, pressing the government repeatedly for more expansive summary information to be provided as evidence for the jury's consideration -- so much so that Fitzgerald and his team, and attorneys from the CIA had to start from scratch and re-draft and re-redact documents in order to fulfill the judge's orders.

To pull this sort of stunt during trial is a slap at the authority of the court and its very detailed, very specific orders -- and the judge's very careful and thorough consideration of the defendant's rights to this very closely guarded, very difficult to obtain information regarding some highly classified national security matters. Judge Walton was clearly not happy, but was still leaning toward a ruling that left the information somewhat on the table for Team Libby until Wells could not stop himself from "gilding the lily" -- Wells started arguing that CIA witnesses "should not be believed" because of their biases toward the Vice President's office, and tat he should be able to argue that to the jury based on Schmall's briefing notes. Judge Walton informed Libby's legal team that he would not permit an argument on a memory defense at closing absent testimony from Libby, because otherwise the memory defense was not relevant to the proceeedings...and that ended the argument, and the judge agreed to issue a terse cautionary instruction on the CIPA information and questions that Mr. Clne had asked, and we went on to the next legal argument.

Which was a mistake for Libby's legal team.

Ted Wells, lead trial counsel for Libby, completely overstepped in making an argument regarding some handwritten notes of the government's witness, Cathie Martin. Libby's trial team had been given copies of these notes a year or more ago, but just got around to asking to see the originals of the notes this past Saturday. Wells was arguing that the copies given by the government were illegible (Fitzgerald countered that they were not and that, were there problems reading any pages, Wells' team had had a year to notify the government and request a better copy, and had failed to do so until last Saturday). Wells then argued that they had not had enough time to read the notes, due to the number of documents which needed review -- Wells made a big deal about the sheer volume of documents.

Huge error.

As it turned out, the sum total of all of Cathie Martin's handwritten notes in their original form totaled less than an inch of paper, most of which were not relevant to the proceedings at all. Those documents which corresponded with the government's intended exhibit proffer were a grand total of six pages. In making an argument which was built on a foundation of very hot air, Wells lost credibility with the judge, with the government, and worse for his client, with those in the media and public gallery.

In a town where reputation and power is everything, Libby's entire legal team
was diminished in a matter of minutes with this one, petty, groundless and unnecessary stunt.

All of these arguments were done outside the view and hearing of the jury, which was sequestered in the jury room at the time the motions took place. So there is no question that this misstep has prejudiced the jury in any way, since they will not hear of it from any of the members of the court. But, in all honesty, irritating a Federal judge this early in a high profile trial by stating something completely unfounded and conflating a tiny misstep (that likely was a result of some lack of preparation issue on the part of some segment of Libby's trial team) is a huge error.

And the entire episode led to Judge Walton saying this on the record in open court about Patrick Fitzgerald: you are "one of the most scrupulous prosecutors I have ever had appear before me," in response to the judge having to deal with the, by comparison, unnecessary conduct that Wells pulled over Cathie Martin's notes.

Watching this occur from the gallery was painful, even for someone like myself who is hoping for a government win in this trial -- because you could see the train coming for miles as this got going, and Wells built his trial persona up and up into a conflated opinion argument before the judge, only to have reality crash in on top. I sat watching, feeling this need to scream out, "Stop, you are going too far." but you just do not do so from the gallery of a federal courtroom while the judge is in session. And so all any of us in the audience could do was watch.

This sort of hubris, after sitting through the opening hour and a half of testimony from Cathie Martin, Vice President Cheney's former public relations assistant, is exactly what started this entire mess in the first place. And so much of the facts on this will continue to spill out in the days ahead. Before I left the courthouse today to catch my flight home, I heard that Ari Fleischer was also in the building. With Cathie Martin still on the stand, and Ari Fleischer standing in the wings, this trial promises to keep heating up in the days and weeks ahead.

-Christy Hardin Smith,
Huffingtonpost.com
...

[michelle]

Scooter Libby and the media debacle
by Eric Boehlert
Tue, Feb 6, 2007 1:11pm EST

The New York Times made headlines last week when it tapped a new D.C. bureau chief. But if the paper of record really wanted to jump-start its Beltway news operation, maybe it should have tried to lure Patrick Fitzgerald away from the Department of Justice.

Let's face it, as special counsel in charge of investigating the Valerie Plame CIA leak, and now the lead prosecutor in D.C. federal court methodically laying out the damning evidence of perjury, obstruction, and lying against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Fitzgerald has consistently shown more interest -- and determination -- in uncovering the facts of the Plame scandal than most Beltway journalists, including the often somnambulant D.C. newsroom of The New York Times.

Indeed, for long stretches, the special counsel easily supplanted the timid D.C. press corps and become the fact-finder of record for the Plame story. It was Fitzgerald and his team of G-men -- not journalists -- who were running down leads, asking tough questions and, in the end, helping inform the American people about possible criminal activity inside the White House.

It's true that Fitzgerald's team had subpoena power that no journalist could match. But reporters in this case had a trump card of their own: inside information. Sadly, most journalists remained mum about the coveted and often damning facts, dutifully keeping their heads down and doing their best to make sure the details never got out about the White House's obsession with discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV by outing his undercover CIA wife, Valerie Plame.

So as the facts of the White House cover-up now tumble out into open court, it's important to remember that if it hadn't been for Fitzgerald's work, there's little doubt the Plame story would have simply faded into oblivion like so many other disturbing suggestions of Bush administration misdeeds. And it would have faded away because lots of high-profile journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, and NBC wanted it to.
CLIP

For a thorough article, with many links,continue reading:
mediamatters.org/columns/200702060006

[DT1]

(Mod's note:I'm reluctant to clutter up this vital thread,but here is a great recap of the Libby trial...
From The Associated Press,of all places.Thanks to the fine folks over at truthout.com).

Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House
The Associated Press
Sunday 11 February 2007

Washington - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.

The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.

The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.

Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.

What has emerged, instead, is:

a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.

a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.

top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.
Libby is accused of lying to the FBI and the grand jury about his talks with reporters concerning Plame. Libby got the White House press secretary to deny he was the source of the leak. He says he thought he first heard about Plame's CIA job from NBC's Tim Russert.

But after checking his own notes, he told the FBI and the grand jury Cheney himself told him Plame worked at CIA a month before the talk with Russert, but Libby says he forgot that in the crush of business.

Cheney already was helping manage the administration's response to allegations that it twisted intelligence to bolster its case on Iraq when Wilson's allegation - in a New York Times op-ed piece on July 6, 2003 - came into his cross hairs.

Cheney told Libby to speak with selected reporters to counter bad news. He developed talking points on the matter for the White House press office. He helped draft a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet. He moved to declassify some intelligence material to bolster the case against Wilson.

Cheney even clipped Wilson's column out of the newspapers and scrawled by hand on it: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Cheney and Libby discussed the matter multiple times each day, according to Libby's grand jury testimony.

A former Cheney press aide, Cathie Martin, testified she proposed leaking some news exclusives but was kept partly in the dark when Cheney ordered Libby to leak part of a classified intelligence report. Later she arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists with Cheney to help bolster the administration's case.

"What didn't he touch? It's almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch.

"The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions," Light said.

Wilson had written that he had not discovered any evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Wilson also asserted that the administration willfully ignored his findings.

Bush mentioned the unsubstantiated Africa connection in his State of the Union address in 2003. The White House and the CIA disavowed the 16-word assertion shortly after Wilson's criticism appeared in print.

A week after Wilson's article, his wife's CIA employment was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak, who wrote that two administration officials told him she suggested sending the former ambassador on the trip.

The disclosure led to a federal investigation into whether administration officials deliberately leaked her identity. Her job was classified and it is a crime to knowingly disclose classified information to unauthorized recipients.

Libby, 56, is not charged with that. He is charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing a grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Libby is the only one charged in the case.

Cheney was upset by Wilson's suggestion that his trip was done at the vice president's behest and that the vice president had surely heard his conclusions well before Bush repeated the Niger story in his speech.

The CIA later said Wilson's mission was suggested by his wife but authorized by others. The agency said Wilson's fact-finding trip was in response to inquiries made by Cheney's office, the State Department and the Pentagon.

Testifying for the prosecution, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was surprised to find the administration was backing off the 16 words that he had been defending. He said it wasn't the first time he spoke of the administration's position with great certainty, only to find it had changed and nobody had bothered to let him know.

Fleischer acknowledged passing along Plame's identity to two reporters. But he testified he did not know at the time that her CIA job was classified.

According to prosecution testimony, Libby had conversations about Plame's identity with Cheney as well as with a Cheney spokeswoman, a undersecretary of state and two CIA officials before he talked to Russert. In addition, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with them.

Russert, the final witness for the prosecution, flatly denied Libby's assertion that the two had discussed Plame before Novak's column appeared.

On the grand jury tapes, Libby also described steps that Cheney took to use parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities, to rebut Wilson.

Among those not informed about this Cheney maneuver, according to the Libby tapes, were then-White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"What was interesting to me was what appears to be the total involvement of the vice president," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses. "If he's down to micromanaging news leaks and responses at that level, I found that quite astounding."

Meantime, it's become clear that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's work to reporters - Washington Post editor Bob Woodward and then Novak. Armitage says it was a mistake, claiming he didn't know her job was classified.

Ultimately, he, Fleischer and special presidential adviser Karl Rove all have acknowledged talking to reporters about her. According to testimony, at least six reporters were privately told by top administration officials of Plame's connection with the CIA.
-----------------------------------------------
Mod's note:.Cheney has done more damage to this nation,and the world,than his imbicile boy-king"boss"ever dreamed of.
Since he cannot (for 748 more days)be stuffed into a well-deserved,offshore dog-kennel of his own making,
becouse of his Ill-gotten (P)residential status,I hope to see him made to take the witness stand.His paranoid delusions and rotten temper will cause him to screw up,"big time"...Let this sad sack tie his own rope.His rabid puppet will go down with him.
Three things come to mind when I see an image of this man...

Digusting Avarice
Reckless Power
Sheer Evil
If I must remind,I will gladly do so:War proffitteering is Treason.
One thing,and one thing only keeps his sorry ass out of shackles and an orange jumpsuit..

Money.
Fucking Blood Money.
3,124 pieces of silver,and counting...