Latest on Scooter Libby

Via
Andrew Sullivan, who concedes "my eyes are starting to glaze over."

What began as an inquiry into the supposed outing of a "covert" CIA operative has become a perjury trial of who said what to whom when. Far from pursuing the original allegation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is now moving heaven and earth to keep every reference to Valerie Plame's covert status as far from a jury as possible. Why? Because every piece of information dealing with Plame's status is an aid to Libby since, by all accounts, Plame's status at the CIA wasn't anything close to what Fitzgerald contended.

Okay, now my eyes are glazing over.

Byron York, whose reporting on this trial deserves some sort of medal, reports that Judge Walton's ruling today hurts Libby: for now, the defense requests for information were quashed. However--a huge however--Walton as much as admitted that, sooner rather than later, Libby would have his way as regards discovery:

In response to the charges filed against him, the defendant relates that one aspect of his defense will be that he was not engaged in a sinister effort to punish Ambassador Wilson or Valerie Plame Wilson; rather, any discussions he had with the reporters concerning Ambassador Wilson, his trip to Niger, or Valerie Plame Wilson were conducted solely for the purpose of refuting the accuracy of Ambassador Wilson’s pronouncements. According to the defendant, his requests for documents relating to discussions he had with other government officials or news reporters that show that he was simply engaged in legitimate efforts to rebut the merits of Ambassador Wilson’s findings are material to the preparation of his defense, as their content would arguably support his claim that the government’s position that he intended to make false statements, commit perjury, and obstruct justice is incorrect. In limited respect, the Court agrees. Therefore, if the government is in possession of documents that show the defendant’s intent to participate or his actual participation in such legitimate efforts, those documents must be produced pursuant to Rule 16.

In other words, eventually Walton will have to allow Libby to mount his defense, which defense will turn on the extent of his criminal intent toward the "outing" of Plame, and hence, to the motive (if any) he would have in lying to cover his tracks.

As York has pointed out, for Fitzgerald the importance is keeping the case small. If Libby lied under oath, he lied, period. Ergo, conviction, jail time, etc.

(If Libby flat-out lied to the grand jury, by the way, he should go to jail. As Bill Clinton should have. If there is no legal mechanism to compel sworn testimony, the law is a joke.)

For Libby, the case is the larger issues. Was Plame a covert agent? And if not, what possible motive would Libby have to lie to the Grand Jury?

Even for someone whose knowledge of the law is limited to courtroom shows and one stint as a Jury Foreman (Guilty, if you're wondering; don't anyone call me Let-'em-go-Joe), there is a strange bizarro-world quality to the case. Usually, the prosecution fights to get everything before a jury: prior bad acts, prior convictions, hearsay, rumors, evidence collected in good faith. Usually the defense wishes to exclude as much as possible. Here we have a case in which the defense would be delighted to lay the entire scope of the Fitzgerald inquiry before a jury, while Fitzgerald would be delighted to keep all mention of Joseph Wilson, Iraq, yellowcake, "16 words," The Downing Street Memo, and--most importantly--the truth of Valerie Plame's occupation a secret.

At present, the whole thing seems a toss-up.

One other observation: every so often, you some across someone who is absolutely ecstatic about being famous (or at least well-known) for absolutely no good reason. Bobby Brown is one example, Kevin Federline another. And now we have the Wilsons: Joe, with his glasses-in-hand, his scarves, his haircut posing as an intellect; and Valerie, pretending to be just crushed, just crushed by all the attention, attending the White House correspondent's dinner and responding to every question with, "Thank you, my dress is Chanel."

The point here is screamingly obvious. If Plame were covert, her one-woman publicity campaign compromises every person in every country who provided her with cover. If no such individual exists, how in heaven can Plame claim she was covert?

And if Plame was not covert, what is this blessed investigation all about?