Libby: Cheney Never Told Me To Discuss Valerie Plame Wilson
A new court filing lays out the defense.
Byron York
National Review Online
A new court filing by CIA leak defendant Lewis Libby suggests that Libby has testified that Vice President Dick Cheney never told him to reveal the identity of CIA employee Valerie Wilson. The filing also suggests that Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, testified that neither President Bush nor anyone else told him to discuss Valerie Wilson, either.
The filing, released shortly before midnight Wednesday night, contains a footnote which says,
"Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does
not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures
concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush, Vice President
Cheney, or anyone else."
In his most recent court motion, CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that
"the President was unaware of the role that [Libby] had
in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."
But Fitzgerald made no such statement about Cheney, and the prosecutor's indictment of Libby hints that the vice president might have been behind the disclosure of Wilson's identity, saying that the process that led to the disclosure was set in motion in early June 2003, when
"Libby learned from the Vice President that [Joseph]
Wilson's
wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation
Division."
In addition, Fitzgerald's filing from last week — the one that contained the erroneous and later-corrected suggestion that Libby lied about the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate — hinted that Cheney was behind the disclosure. In that filing, Fitzgerald wrote that Libby
<<< "testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and [Joseph] Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time)." >>>
The new Libby filing also says there is evidence to support Libby's claim that he was never instructed to discuss Valerie Wilson with reporters. The Libby legal team says that "contemporaneous documents" contain a point-by-point summary of the case Libby was to make for journalists, and those points do not contain any reference to Valerie Wilson:
The government pretends that Mr. Wilson's wife was a part
of the response Mr. Libby was instructed to make to Mr.
Wilson's false claims, and even argues that 'disclosing
the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger
trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion
that the Vice President had done so...' In fact, as the
government is well aware, contemporaneous documents
reflect the points that Mr. Libby was to make to reporters,
and these documents do not include any information about
Wilson's wife" [emphasis in the original].
In sum, Libby argues that Fitzgerald has conflated the White House's desire to answer the accusations made by Joseph Wilson with a plot to expose Wilson's wife. "The government's argument that Mr. Libby attached importance to 'the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife'," the Libby brief says,
cleverly masks the fact that the evidence on which this
argument relies — e.g., the involvement of the President
and Vice-President, the declassification of the NIE, the
Vice President's direction that Mr. Libby speak to the
press, the rarity of 'on the record' statements by Mr.
Libby — has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Wilson's
wife. Mr. Libby must be in a position at trial to show
the jury that, consistent with his grand jury testimony,
he responded in good faith on the merits to Mr. Wilson's
allegations, instead of seeking to question his
allegiances or motives. For that reason it is vital that
Mr. Libby obtain discovery of the truth regarding Mr.
Wilson's allegations, including all communications by him
with the CIA, the State Department, or anyone else
concerning those allegations [emphasis in the original].
Finally, the new Libby brief makes another appeal for Judge Reggie Walton to require Fitzgerald to release evidence showing that Valerie Wilson's job status at the CIA was classified. Fitzgerald has so far refused to offer any such evidence, or any evidence that the disclosure of Wilson's identity in any way harmed national security.
"According to the government, Mr. Libby made false
statements and committed perjury because he knew 'there
would be great embarrassment to the administration if it
became publicly known that [he] had participated in
disseminating information about Ms. Wilson's CIA
employment,' and because he 'would have had every reason
to assume he would be fired if his true actions became
known,'"
the Libby brief argues. To make that accusation, Libby continues, Fitzgerald should be required to show that Wilson's employment status was indeed classified:
The government's arguments about motive further underscore
that the defense is entitled to discovery about whether
Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified, as the
defense has requested in previous motions. The government
resists disclosing information regarding the allegedly
classified status of Ms. Wilson's employment, and the
knowledge and understanding of others as to whether that
employment was classified, on the ground that the
information is not relevant to the defense. Yet, almost
in the same breath, the government presents an argument
on Mr. Libby's motive to lie that makes this information
highly relevant and material to preparation of the defense.
Libby's new filing, and the Fitzgerald filing that preceded it, suggest that the CIA leak case, if Libby case goes to trial, will move far beyond the issue of Valerie Wilson. Fitzgerald's discussion of the National Intelligence Estimate and of the administration's general response to Joseph Wilson, Libby argues, "indicates that at trial all aspects of the government's response to Mr. Wilson will be relevant — including any actions taken by the President." If that is the case, then the trial, which Fitzgerald has said will be a limited criminal inquiry into whether Lewis Libby lied, will more resemble a broad inquiry into the politics of pre-war intelligence.
— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
nationalreview.com |
