Another Libby Motion

Wednesday, April 12, 2006
TopsecretK9 has provided a Libby Memo in Reply to the Government's Response to the Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery which is reproduced here. TeamLibby makes some assertions that Patrick Fitzgerald may have difficulty in rebutting. In particular, the section concerning Grossman's recollections is very interesting.

Clarice Feldman offers insights as to the import of this memo at American Thinker. Her comments concerning Fitzgerald's tactics - particularly his use of newspaper articles as grand jury exhibits are also very intriguing. What does a newspaper article prove (aside from the 'fact' that a reporter found something of interest - at least to the reporter)?


David Thomson said...

Marc Grossman’s recollections are likely murky and confused. This should not come as a surprise. Human memory does not operate like a tape recorder. Valerie Plame was obviously a mere CIA bureaucrat, and not a James Bond type operative. Such people are a dime a dozen in the Washington, DC area. There’s simply no reason to remember petty details discussed roughly a year earlier.

I‘m convinced that Patrick Fitzgerald enjoys the limelight. On a gut level, he rightfully sensed that his growing fame (and the financial rewards which eventually go with it) would disappear overnight unless he continued the investigation. At the end, he had to indict someone. Not to do so, would essentially make him look foolish. Scooter Libby is his victim. And in this particular case---the often misused term of victim is most appropriate.

The odds are that this case will never go to trial. If it does, the defense team only needs to convert one juror. This is probably doable even in this partisan Democratic area.

brylun said...

Rick and Clarice, Once again thanks for the postings. Very informative.

Rick Ballard said...


This whole thing appears to be a war between State and the CIA - Grossman is on the State team and knows that when Armitage fed Novak the tip on Plame he slipped up by telling him that Plamed worked in WMD analysis. Her "affiliation" with the WMD team was classified, her "status" as an employee of the CIA was not. Fitz was very cute about her employment status having been classified at one time but having since been declassified - he acknowledges the fact without ever giving the date of declassification.

I agree that Fitz has ridden this case a lot longer than he should have but I don't have a clue as to motive - when he found out that Armitage didn't know that Plame's 'affiliation' was classified he had to have known that he wasn't dealing with a chargeable offense.

Fresh Air said...

Fitzie would have been an attractive Senate candidate at one time. He's still investigating Mayor Daley, and may eventually get the goods on him. He could have been a contender. He could have been...Guiliani. Instead of a bum, which is what he is.

Ultimately, don't we need some sort of new jurisprudential standard? One where if the underlying crime can't be proven, obstruction of justice related to it cannot be criminal. I realize this is a slippery slope and may let people like the Fellatee-in-Chief off. On the other hand, Arthur Andersen would still be in business today.

CF said...

fresh air, You said a mouthful. Comey sent Martha Stewart to jail on similar hooey, but the Anderson case is the shame of our criminal justice system. Anyone could be brought up on obstruction charges given the loose handling of it by ambitious prosecutors and the failure of the Courts to clamp down on this misuse of the charge.

Knucklehead said...

One where if the underlying crime can't be proven, obstruction of justice related to it cannot be criminal.

Could you legal folks elaborate on how such a thing might be implemented? Isn't the point of obstructing justice to attempt to prevent proving the underlying crime? Wouldn't such a thing mean we can't prosecute those who successfully obstruct justice?

Fresh Air said...


Even worse, I think, is that in the wake of Andersen and Libby, you have the erosion of innocent until proven guilty since accusations made by a prosecutor and seconded by a credulous grand jury become, ipso facto, convictions since the accused cannot conduct his business with an indictment over his head.

The Italian justice system does have some merit.

CF said...

knucklehead, in the general case you have a point, but the IIPA is a very narrow statute. Since it appears the predicates for it could never have been met, I think it obvious there was no legitimate investigation to be obstructed.And since there wasn't allowing the Prosecutor to claim obstruction is to give an imprimatur to setting up perjury traps.

Rick Ballard said...


How can one obstruct the investigation of a non-crime? It's the very existence of a crime that is in question - one of those teeny, tiny hurdles that one might hope a prosecutor would verify before fully launching. In this case, with the CIA as a client, Fitz had a moral duty to make sure that a violation of a statute had in fact occurred before he asserted that Libby obstructed - except that the obstruction statute doesn't make that moral duty a legal duty.

If you look at what Fitz has done very closely, you'll begin to have a good deal of sympathy for Hillary Clinton and her "I don't recall" Arkansas Alzheimer replies. He's not helping the investigation business and he's a fair distance from anything involving justice.

David Thomson said...

“....but I don't have a clue as to motive”

I have no intention of playing God. Still, Patrick Fitzgerald’s actions are senseless unless he subconsciously is seeking fame. Human beings lie themselves all the time. He wouldn’t be the first one.

David Thomson said...

“If you look at what Fitz has done very closely, you'll begin to have a good deal of sympathy for Hillary Clinton and her "I don't recall" Arkansas Alzheimer replies.”

I was among Hillary Clinton’s staunchest defenders on this point! I remember well telling people that her defense was somewhat credible. People simply do not remember every single detail of their lives.

Knucklehead said...


I was thinking in more general terms - FA's comment seemed to suggest that. Sorta as if know a car was stolen, had a suspect, needed to look at the suspect's clothes for some fiber evidence or somesuch, and the supect said, "Oh, I decided to be a nudist just this morning and burned all my clothes" kinda thing.

If there is no evidence that a crime of any sort was committed then the whole notion of obstructing justice seems silly. I certainly agree that people shouldn't be prosecuted for obstructing justice when nobody can demonstrate that any crime was committed. Which, BTW, seems to be what we have here with this Libby case.

Fresh Air said...


"Oh, I decided to be a nudist just this morning and burned all my clothes" kinda thing.

Now why didn't I think of that one? Must be that New Jersey atmosphere.