CIA Leak Probe Update

Byron York has a new update on the Plame CIA leak case that makes Patrick Fitzgerald look more than a little incompetent. Here's the heart of the article:

Perhaps the key moment in the descent happened last February in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. Fitzgerald was there, along with the Libby defense team. Libby's lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity. In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald's reasons.

"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson's status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?" Walton asked. "We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald said. "We're not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It's not part of the perjury statute."

It was an astonishing statement, in the context of what Fitzgerald has said in the past. Go back to the news conference he held last October in which he announced the Libby indictment. The case was very serious, Fitzgerald said, as he launched into the famous metaphor in which he compared the CIA-leak case to a baseball game in which the pitcher threw a fastball, hit the batter and "really, really hurt him."" This case is kind of like that, Fitzgerald said, only "it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.""

In other words, Fitzgerald is saying that the publishing of Plame's name did her no damage and that the 'investigation' was a political witch hunt. What this proves is that Fitzgerald isn't a "prosecutor's prosecutor" as Chuck Schumer claimed but is, in fact, a political hack.

But what about Mrs. Wilson's job status? When that issue came up, the conversation went truly off track. Wells was again pressing the judge to force Fitzgerald to turn over evidence of the damage done. The reason he needed it, Wells said, is that Fitzgerald will likely, and understandably, tell the jurors that the case began with the outing of a CIA agent.

"What [the jurors] are hearing is that, as Mr. Fitzgerald said in his press conference, Mr. Libby outed a CIA agent, and they are going to be sitting in the box thinking 007's identity has been disclosed and that my client is a terrible person," Wells said. "It's going to be like we have turned over the crown jewels because we outed a classified CIA agent.""

The judge then turned to Fitzgerald. What did he have to say? "We are trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald said. "If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it's not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said."

Fitzgerald has a penchant for being overly melodramatic. He tells the world that the leaking of Plame's name is on a par with giving the Soviets our launch codes but then tells the jury that it's only about Libby lying. He doesn't allow for the fact that he might not have lied but might've gotten his facts wrong. Based on Fitzgerald's credibility, who'd believe that Libby lied? Why would jurors not think that Fitzgerald simply had to have a 'head on the wall' so people wouldn't think that his 'investigation' was just a sham?

Furthermore, why shouldn't people not believe a single word the Wilsons say? What evidence does Fitzgerald have that Libby lied? Making a mistake in his testimony isn't lying. That won't cut it in most jurors' eyes because they'd need proof that Libby didn't just make an innocent mistake. Who's gonna believe Fitzgerald's claims at that point?

---

Posted Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:07 PM

No comments.