CIA Leak Judge Says No To Secret Arguments

[Missy Vixen]

From our friends across the pond...This is printed in tomorrow's Guardian.

Julie


CIA Leak Judge Says No to Secret Arguments

Thursday April 6, 2006 2:01 AM


By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge barred prosecutors in the CIA leak case Wednesday from making arguments that would be kept secret from the defendant, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

Lawyers for I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby are seeking a substantial amount of highly classified documents from the government so that the former White House aide can defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

Libby is accused of making false statements about how he learned of the CIA employment of covert officer Valerie Plame and what he told reporters about her connection to the agency. Plame's identity was publicly disclosed in 2003, eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

In trying to scale back the amount of information they have to turn over to Libby, prosecutors said they should be allowed to argue their case in secret, out of the presence of the defendant and his lawyers, a request that U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5736611,00.html

[catabryna]

1. Totally agree with the judge's decision

It is highly improper for a prosecutor to be able to make ex parte arguments in a hearing before a judge without the defendant and his attorneys being present. But, the judge did indicate that an in camera review was appropriate and that the defense isn't entitled to a free-for-all that exceeds the level of their security clearances. Thoughtful judge, and I think it's fair to say that the judge's decision is not likely to be overturned on appeal.

[Major Hogwash]

2. Allow me to disagree.

What Libby has been attempting to do is to ask for every top secret PDB the President read (or was supposed to have read) for a period of 90 days or more in order to prove that he hadn't leaked secret information about Valerie Plame.

Libby's lawyer is attempting to ask for documents that are not only NOT germane to his defense, but are extremely hard to have declassified - it is the same defense strategy that Admiral Poindexter used to overturn his conviction and after he was successful in using this strategy, Oliver North's attorneys adopted the same strategy to overturn his conviction for the crimes they committed during the Iran/Contra scandal.

It is the ol' "I have to expose all the secrets the President knew in order to defend myself" strategy.

Libby's lawyer wants to expose some other top level secret in order to defend himself from leaking the secret that Plame was a covert CIA agent at that time.

Of course, the U.S. won't like that, so they'll refuse to release those PDB's, and the top secret information they contain, and then Libby's lawyers will be able to cry "foul" and say they aren't being given enough information in which to adequately defend their client.

This is major hogwash.

The President's PDB's during the time frame that Libby's lawyers have asked to be released have nothing to do with Libby's case - nothing!

It is just a diversionary ploy.

However, if the prosecution was allowed to present information to the judge in secret, then that information would not have to be exposed to the public in a public trial.

Secret information presented to a judge in this way is allowed whenever national security issues are brought up in cases involving spies and the like.

Libby should be tried for treason because his act of leaking Plame's name was an act of treason.

Since the judge is going to rule this way, it limits the prosecutors' ability to convict this traitor.

Divorce decrees are sometimes sealed in this country, and they are granted a higher level of secrecy than the public trial proceedings of this very crooked man.

So, I disagree with this judge's decision.

Regardless, whatever the judge decides, the case will be appealed.

[autorank]

3. This judge is a "ringer" ... he's part of their defense strategy...

and when I say "their" strategy, I mean the WH. This is a disgrace.

Somebody has to do some TruthTelling form the inside on this clown.

Or, Fitz has to get fed up and just indict the whole damn bunch of them.

That will be very interesting. Just how will Fitz deal with the obvious stacked deck?
Will he cave and go away? Will he get pissed and pull down the temple columns?

Pictures at 11:00.

Excellent post (the one I'm resonding to). Thank you.

[catabryna]

6. I don't believe he is a ringer...

anymore than I believe Fitz is a ringer. The judge is following the lead of a seasoned judge in these matters and is getting good advice. I'd love to see him slam the door on all of these criminals, trust me. But, we also need to make sure that the both of them do it right.

[autorank]

8. One name to remember Sibel Edmonds...Walton is that Judge...

What could be more relevant to public exposure than the charges of Edmonds. He has her under
"gag order." Now we have this case and he wants all to come out in open court. You want to
feel better about the judge, then show me a reason why he's ultra pro secrecy on one national
security issue and ultra open court on another. Just like the US Supreme Court on Gore versus
*. The states rights people all stood on their head for Federalist interpretations to help
* steal the election (and Gore won anyway) in Florida.

Comparing Walton to Fitz is torturous. Fitz has a clear and consistent public record of pursuing
the truth wherever it takes him -- the cases against all sorts of bad guys; the Gov Ryan in IL case;
the OBL and other terrorist cases...consistent pursuit of criminals with consistent strategies and
tactics. Walton can't carry his brief case and the decisions, which clearly screw Fitz, are not
the lease bit consistent with Walton's most recent national security case. He is a ringer, little
doubt.

[catabryna]

11. I'm not in a position to argue about the Edmonds case

and the Walton issues surrounding it because, while I was aware of it, I didn't follow it as closely as I'm following this issue. Perhaps it was because I wasn't a DUer yet? Heehee. Anyway, Judge Walton is getting advice from the Iran-Contra judge on this matter so, perhaps, the outcome will be more to our liking??? Hopefully!

And, thanks for the welcome!

[autorank]

12. Oh, now you tell me;) Which Iran-Contra Judge...

...sorry for my laziness but this actually good news.

btw, I don't think Fitz is a ringer. I DO think, I'm positive that his selection was highly calculated by Comey and some other very, very serious people to acheive the intended outcome...the eviceration, slowly and thoroughly, of *. Fitz is so consistent plus he was a math major, structure, rules, must make sense...and those f'ing math people are always the smartest when they have the verbal skills to let us know;)

[catabryna]

15. Royce C. Lamberth...

This is one judge who seems to be able to surprise people on both sides of the fence on a regular basis but, he showed remarkable prowess in the Iran-Contra affair.

He is providing Walton with advice on how to handle the issues surrounding highly classified materials and their potential use in criminal trials. I am reading Walton's decisions of yesterday to find out the bases of his decision to see if my take on the matter is valid. I can't stand just reading articles; I just have to read the decisions.

And, yep, those math guys with matching verbal skills are incredible! And, if I did, I never meant to imply that I believed you thought Fitz is a ringer. I think Fitz is a tremendous talent in the legal field and wish there were more like him!

[catabryna]

5. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with...

However, the judge will be reviewing the documents in question in secrecy (in camera). The judge is only saying that he will not allow a private hearing on the matter. The documents will be reviewed for relevancy by the judge under seal and he will have to make the decision about whether they rise to the level of being relevant evidence for the defense.

And, he is right... it is improper to have a private "hearing" attended only by the prosecution; we may not like it, but that's the way it should be.

I know about the prior use of the requests of highly classified material to create a bases for dismissal of charges. This is exactly what the judge is trying to avoid!

[autorank]

9. Hope you're right. Welcome to DU! n/t

[ieoeja]

13. How can the documents be "NOT germane" to the defense?

But be germane to the prosecution? And if they are also not germane to the prosecution, then the prosecution should not be allowed to use those documents in arguing their case period.

Read my tag-line. It doesn't make a bit of difference whom the defendant is in this case. The prosecution should not be allowed to use evidence that the defendant is not allowed to see. That is just plain wrong.

[catabryna]

16. Because...

Scooter is only being tried for perjury. Fitz's investigation is much more broad than Libby's perjury charges and, therefore, the only documents that are relevant to Libby's defense are those which prove or disprove that he lied to the grand jury. Conspiracies, who leaked, etc. are not the issue... the sole issue is that he lied. Fitz is trying to prevent the defense from obtaining all the other documents which are totally UNRELATED to the charge of perjury.

In addition, keep in mind that Fitz has not closed his investigation. He certainly doesn't want to turn over his cards!

[ieoeja]

17. How do you defend yourself without knowing the evidence?

"the only documents that are relevant to Libby's defense are those which prove or disprove that he lied to the grand jury"

Then:

1. Those are the only documents the prosecution should be allowed to use in their arguments before the court.

2. The defense should be allowed to see those documents.

3. Far, far, far more importantly the defense should be allowed to see and hear the prosecution argue their case against Libby before the judge.

Go back to the top. The ruling wasn't just, "you have to let them see the documents". The ruling was, "you have to let them see/hear you argue the case before the judge".

The prosecution wanted to argue their case before the judge without the defense being present. The defense would have to defend themselves without even knowing what evidence had been presented against them. That is ludicrous.

[catabryna]

19. And, if you read my post above...

you will note that I said it was highly inappropriate to allow the prosecution to have a private hearing. Additionally, I don't believe Fitz ever thought that an ex parte hearing would fly with the judge, even though he requested it; he's much too smart for that.

Keep in mind that the prosecution (government) has already released at least 12,000+ pages of documents to the defense. The defense is saying that those 12,000+ pages don't help Libby. Libby's defense is that he had too much going on at the time to "remember" anything from one day to the next and that is why he either lied to, or misled the grand jury. He wants the PDBs and other classified materials to show just how "frazzled" he was and that he didn't intentionally lie; he just had a lot on his mind.

I totally believe that a defendant is entitled to materials that will help exonerate him. I believe that criminal defendants in this country have the deck stacked against them in the majority of cases.

However, Libby's attorneys are using a defense ploy that was used in the Iran-Contra trials in an attempt to get a dismissal. The "if we don't have access to every little piece of paper, you have to dismiss the case" has been attempted before. So, to avoid a dismissal of the charges, I believe, the judge used good judgment in saying "no" to the private hearings, but "yes" to reviewing the documents "in camera" (private) for relevancy.

[savemefromdumbya]

18. maybe

[catabryna]

20. And maybe not...

we'll see.

[Supersedeas]

4. Could this be the backdoor that allows Libby and the WH escape?

[gratuitous]

7. Hmmm, defendant's rights are a high priority

At least when the defendant is a well-connected white guy. When the defendant has been declared extra-judicially and probably unconstitutionally an "enemy combatant," the defendant's rights fly out the window.

Welcome to the concept of justice, Bushworld style.

[Thorandmjolnir]

10. exept when they are terroist suspects in US custody

Then, secret arguments and testimony is perfectly fine.

Examples: Sami Al Arian in Florida. Everyne in Gitmo, Zacharias Moussoui and there are properbly many more.

Oh, almost forgot, Sibel Edmonds.

[gratuitous]

14. Well, those defendants you named are not WCWG

So my well-connected white guy theory of Bush administration justice rolls on, inexorably.

[Thorandmjolnir]

21. LOL

[radio4progressives]

22. Anyone catching the current spin a la WH Propagandist Mike Isakoff?

Says President hasn't broken any laws.. he is allowed to declassify national security information.

Also, unbelievably, Isikoff referenced Bob Woodward's books as being the primary recipient of declassified material - which was the source of everything we "now know" regarding reasons to go to war blah blah blah blah.

All this bullshit (and much more) was allowed to stand unchallenged just a few minutes ago on MSNBC.