FITZGERALD'S COURT DOCUMENTS

I found this on Salon.com LS

FITZGERALD'S COURT DOCUMENTS


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ))
CR. NO 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as “Scooter Libby” )
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, SPECIAL
COUNSEL, respectfully submits the following response to the “Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to
Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady.”
INTRODUCTION
On October 28, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a five-count indictment charging
defendant I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements
to federal investigators, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1623 and 1001, in connection with an
investigation concerning leaks to reporters of classified information regarding the employment of
Valerie Plame Wilson.
To date, the government has provided defendant with approximately 12,300 pages of
classified and unclassified discovery, including the entire set of documents produced to the Office
of Special Counsel by the Office of the Vice President, a large quantity of classified and unclassified
documents from several other government agencies, and certain grand jury testimony and documents
provided by reporters. The government currently is in the process of obtaining from the Office of
the Vice President and producing to defendant an estimated 1,400 pages of additional handwritten
notes prepared during the period May 6, 2003 through March 24, 2004, pursuant to the Court’s
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 1 of 39

2
ruling from the bench on February 24, 2006. The government also is currently in the process of
providing defendant with additional discovery concerning his morning intelligence briefings during
the periods of June 7-14, 2003, October 12-16, 2003, November 24-28, 2003, March 3-7, 2003, and
March 22-26, 2003, pursuant to the Court’s Order of March 10, 2006.
ARGUMENT
Defendant’s third discovery motion seeks expansive additional discovery, principally on the
ground that the documents sought are “material to the preparation of the defense,” as that phrase is
used in Fed. R. Evid. 16(a)(1)(E)(i). Defendant asserts that the documents he seeks, which among
other things include nearly every document generated by four large executive branch entities relating
to Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, are discoverable under Rule 16 because they will
assist in the preparation of witness examinations, provide context for the government’s allegations,
and demonstrate his lack of a motive to commit the perjury and false statement offenses charged in
the indictment.
Defendant’s motion is flawed in two fundamental respects. First, it rests on an unsupportable
reading of Rule 16 which, if adopted by the Court, would to a large extent substitute open file
discovery for Rule 16, a proposition that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Second, it is
premised on relevance arguments which overlook the fact that defendant is charged with perjury, not
a conspiracy to commit various other crimes. When viewed against the correct legal standards for
discovery and in the context of the crimes charged in the indictment, defendant’s motion for
miscellaneous additional discovery should be denied for the reasons set forth more fully below.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 2 of 39

3
I. Applicable Legal Standards
The Supreme Court long ago established, and has continued to hold, that discovery in
criminal cases is not unlimited and does not sweep in everything known to the government and
uncovered during the investigation. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109 (1975) (no
constitutional duty to “allow complete discovery of . . . files as a matter of routine practice”); United
States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985) (“the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file
to defense counsel”); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1997); United States v. Ruiz, 536
U. S. 622, 630 (2002); see also United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1251 (11th Cir. 2003) (no
right to unsupervised search through the government’s files). Nor does Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16 authorize general access to the government’s investigation file; rather, Rule 16(a)(1)(E)
is limited to discovery of records “material to preparing the defense.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).
Rule 16 requires disclosure only of evidence that “enables the defendant significantly to alter the
quantum of proof in his favor.” 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8 (citing United States v. Marshall, 132 F.3d
63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). An “abstract logical relationship to the issues in the case” is insufficient.
3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8; Jordan, 316 F.3d at 1251 (citing United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498, 506
(5th Cir. 1978)). And where classified information is sought, the defendant must also show that the
classified information “is at least helpful to the defense.” 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 9 (citing United
States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 623 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).
In United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), the Supreme Court provided specific
instruction as to what records are “material to preparing the defense” – that term means “the
defendant’s response to the Government’s case in chief.” Id. at 462. Thus, the parameters of Rule
16 discovery are set by the indictment. United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 11, 13 (D.D.C. 1991)
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 3 of 39

4
(cited by 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8). Accordingly, there is no general Rule 16 right to broadly fish
through the government’s investigative file simply because the defendant makes a “conclusory
allegation” of materiality. United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing
United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir. 1970)); see Jordan, 316 F.3d at 1251; United
States v. Carrasquillo-Plaza, 873 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S.
786, 795 (1972) (“We know of no constitutional requirement that the prosecution make a complete
and detailed accounting to the defense of all police investigatory work on a case.”); United States
v. Heidecke, 683 F.Supp. 1211, 1214 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (rejecting discovery request under Brady for
“all files reviewed by the investigators”).
Nor is the defendant permitted to invoke Rule 16 to generally rummage through the files of
other federal agencies. United States v. Labovitz, 1997 WL 289732, at *4 (D. Mass. May 30, 1997)
(rejecting a Rule 16 “broad fishing expedition” of FDIC’s files concerning the victim-bank in bank
fraud prosecution). Such casting about in the files of other government agencies simply has no basis:
defendant cannot require “an affirmative government-wide search for possibly exculpatory evidence”
or for “‘any materials that might conceivably be useful to his defense.’” United States v. Poindexter,
727 F. Supp. 1470, 1485 (D.D.C. 1989) (quoting United States v. North, 1988 WL 148527 (D.D.C.
July 13, 1988)).
Thus, defendant is wrong to suggest that Rule 16 grants him the right to review all of the
documents that the government reviewed during its investigation. Def.’s Mem. at 2 (“Presumably,
the government reviewed these documents during its investigation to identify useful witnesses or
documents and to determine whether the testimony of witnesses was truthful. Rule 16 gives the
defense the right to use these documents for precisely the same purposes.”). Putting aside the fact
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 4 of 39

5
that the government did not review all the myriad documents defendant now requests, there is no
authority for the proposition – and defendant cites none – that Rule 16 allows the defense to look
through every document the government examined. To the contrary, documents are “material to
preparing the defense” under Rule 16 only if the documents are specifically part of the “the
defendant’s response to the Government’s case in chief” as delimited by the charges, Armstrong, 517
U.S. at 462, not simply because the government at some point reviewed the record during the
investigation. Allowing defendant to attempt to replicate the government’s investigation is
particularly inappropriate because the government’s investigation was far broader in scope than the
charges ultimately brought in the indictment.
Thus, in analyzing whether the documents sought in defendant’s latest request for discovery
are “material to the preparation of the defense” and disclosable under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), the Court
should follow the analytical process set out in its March 10, 2006 Memorandum Opinion: examine
the defendant’s request in light of the allegations in the indictment, and assess whether “there is a
strong indication that [the material sought] will play an important role in uncovering admissible
evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal,”
United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d at 351 – recognizing also that when the defense seeks classified
information it is held to the additional burden of demonstrating that the classified information is
“helpful to the defense,” United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d at 623. 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8-9.
Against the backdrop of the limited charges in this indictment – that defendant lied to the
grand jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his acquisition and disclosures to the media
of information concerning Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the Central Intelligence Agency
– defendant’s latest discovery requests fail this test.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 5 of 39

Although defendant includes the documents in this category in 1 his list of documents that
would aid in preparing witness examinations he makes no specific argument as to why these
documents would be helpful in that regard, and does not identify which witness or witnesses they
would assist in examining.
6
II. Analysis
A. The Requested Documents Are Not Discoverable on the Ground that They
Would Be Helpful in Preparing to Examine Potential Witnesses.
Defendant argues that he is entitled to the following materials on the ground that they are
material to the preparation of his defense in that they would aid in preparing to examine or crossexamine
potential trial witnesses:
1. All documents and information generated or received by the State Department, the
CIA, the Executive Office of the President and/or the National Security Council
(“NSC”)” concerning former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, and any
involvement in that trip by his wife, including
a. the origins of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger, including any role played by Ms.
Wilson in connection with the trip;
b. reports about the trip; and
c. subsequent discussion, comment or analysis concerning the trip, including
government documents concerning the trip and/or Ms. Wilson’s role in it that
were generated after May 6, 2003, when the controversy surrounding the
disputed sixteen words erupted.
2. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan by any
government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson.
3. All documents reflecting Mr. Wilson’s communications with officials at the State
Department or other government agencies concerning his trip to Niger or the “sixteen
words.”1
4. Any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin
Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 6 of 39

Defendant’s argument with respect to this category 2 of documents is limited to the
preparation of an examination of former Secretary of State Powell. See, infra, at 14.
3 Defendant’s requests as listed in his Third Motion to Compel do not track the precise
language of the document requests made to the government by letter.
7
worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA
send her husband on a mission to Niger.”2
Memo. at 14-16, 23. 3 The government has produced to defendant all documents related to Mr.
Wilson’s trip that it received from the OVP. In addition, the government has produced to defendant
documents, received from any source, relating to conversations, correspondence, or meetings
involving defendant in which Mr. Wilson’s trip was discussed, and has produced additional materials
from the CIA and the State Department relating generally to Mr. Wilson’s trip. The government
declined to produce some documents related to Mr. Wilson’s trip on that the ground that those
documents were completely irrelevant to defendant’s knowledge or communications regarding Mr.
Wilson, Ms. Wilson, or Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The government is unaware of any documents
reflecting communications between Mr. Wilson and the State Department regarding the “sixteen
words” other than media reports and material that would fall within the Jencks Act if the government
were to call Mr. Wilson as a witness.
Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to
discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. The government declined to produce
documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation, even if such documents could be so
characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms.
Wilson. The government has no knowledge of the existence of any notes reflecting comments by
former Secretary of State Powell regarding Ms. Wilson during a September 2003 meeting.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 7 of 39

8
Defendant overreaches when he asserts that Rule 16 generally requires the production of all
materials that may be helpful in preparing to examine witnesses. The bulk of the documents that
defendant seeks to assist in preparing witness examinations (here correspondence, e-mails, and
reports generated by potential witnesses and those around them) fall within the category of witness
statements and arguable impeachment information covered by the Jencks Act and Giglio. If
defendant’s position were correct, the Jencks Act, Rule 26.2, and Giglio obligations would be
unnecessary and redundant because all such material – and far more – would have been disclosed
pursuant to Rule 16. To the contrary, Rule 16(a)(2) expressly prohibits the use of Rule 16 as an endrun
around the Jencks Act: “Nor does this rule authorize the discovery or inspection of statements
made by prospective government witnesses except as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3500.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16(a)(2). Furthermore, the defendant cannot simply recite that access to statements will
“enhance[] defense counsels’ ability to cross-examine” a witness as a basis for using Rule 16 to
disregard the Jencks Act. United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1414-15 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
To be sure, Brady and Giglio may require disclosure of material beyond that required by Rule
16, but an argument that those cases up-end the normal timing of Jencks Act production is “an
attempt to convert Brady into a broad rule of discovery in criminal cases.” Tarantino, 846 F.2d at
1416; see also United States v. Hart, 760 F. Supp. 653, 659 (E.D. Mich. 1991) (timing of disclosure,
if required, is based on defense’s ability to make effective use of information at trial). That is
particularly true where the defendant seeks statements from one witness that will purportedly be at
odds with the statement of another witness: “witnesses are not impeached by prior inconsistent
statements of other witnesses, but by their own prior inconsistent statements.” Id. (emphasis in
original). At bottom, Rule 16 also does not constitute a free-floating tool to cast about for
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 8 of 39

Defendant indicates that the “CIA briefer” described in paragraph 4 ph 11 of the indictment
may be Craig Schmall, Peter Clement, or Matt Barrett.
5 Defendant indicates that the “senior CIA official” described in paragraph 7 of the
indictment may be Robert Grenier or John McLaughlin.
9
impeachment material on potential witnesses; rather, there must be a “strong” indication that the
material will play an “important” role in assisting impeachment. Marshall, 132 F.3d at 68.
Potential Government Witnesses
Defendant contends that the foregoing documents are discoverable because they are necessary
to prepare to examine the following potential government witnesses in this case:
(a) former CIA Director George Tenet;
(b) CIA briefer Craig Schmall;4
(c) former senior CIA official Bob Grenier;5
(d) former Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman;
(e) former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer;
(f) former Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley; and
(g) current White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.
Because the government does not intend at this time to call three of these individuals – Mr.
Tenet, Mr. Hadley, and Mr. Rove – defendant is not entitled to discovery based on the need to
prepare to cross-examine those individuals.
With respect to the individuals whom the government does intend to call as witnesses, the
documents defendant demands go well beyond anything that would be necessary to prepare to
examine these individuals, and indeed, far beyond the scope of what is relevant to the charges
contained in the indictment. Defendant demands the production of all “documents and information”
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 9 of 39

References to defendant’s Third Motion to Compel are 6 to “Memo.,” followed by the
relevant page number. Defendant states that documents that relate to Mr. Wilson’s trip form the
“core” of the discovery at issue in this motion. Memo. at 12. References to the exhibits to
defendant’s motion are to “Memo. Exhibit,” followed by the exhibit number.
7 References to the Indictment are to “Indict.,” followed by the relevant count and paragraph
number.
10
generated or received by anyone in the State Department, the CIA, the Executive Office of the
President and/or the National Security Council (“NSC”) concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger,6
which includes “the origins of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger, including any role played by Ms. Wilson
in connection with the trip,” “any reports about the trip,” and any “subsequent discussion, comment
or analysis concerning the trip.” Memo. at 14-16. Defendant seeks the requested materials without
regard to whether defendant or any prospective witness actually wrote, reviewed, or even saw the
materials, and without regard to whether any prospective witness is expect to testify about them.
For example, defendant makes a sweeping demand for State Department documents
regarding Mr. Wilson’s trip, despite the fact that, as is evident from the indictment, the testimony
of the government’s lone State Department witness, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Marc Grossman, will focus on conversations between Mr. Grossman and defendant in late May and
early June 2003 concerning former Ambassador Wilson’s trip, and Mr. Grossman’s efforts during
that period to gather information regarding the trip in response to defendant’s inquiries. See Indict.,
Count One, ¶¶ 4, 5, 6.7 As a result of defendant’s inquiries, information was gathered and a
classified report was prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (“the
INR report”). In June 2003, Mr. Grossman orally advised defendant that he had learned that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel believed that Mr. Wilson’s
wife was involved in the planning of Mr. Wilson’s trip. See Indict., Count One, ¶ 6.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 10 of 39

11
Defendant has been provided with a copy of the INR report in classified discovery, and the
government understands that no contemporaneous reports written by Mr. Grossman about his
conversations with defendant in May and June 2003 are available. Prior to trial, defendant will be
provided with prior statements of Mr. Grossman as part of the government’s Jencks Act disclosure,
as well as any material required under Giglio.
The central issue at trial will be whether defendant lied when he testified that he was not
aware that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA prior to his purported conversation with Tim
Russert about Mr. Wilson’s wife on or about July 10, 2003. See Indict., Count One, ¶ 20. Mr.
Grossman’s testimony is specifically relevant to show that defendant was told of Ms. Wilson’s
employment and possible role in planning Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger in early June 2003. This
testimony will not be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; indeed, it is irrelevant whether
Mr. Wilson’s wife actually did work at the CIA or actually did play a role in arranging the trip, or
how State Department employees viewed the results of the Wilson trip. Likewise, none of these
issues are relevant to preparing for Mr. Grossman’s examination.
Defendant makes the same sweeping demand for CIA and White House documents related
to Mr. Wilson’s trip, although, once again, the anticipated testimony of the government’s CIA
witnesses, Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer, and Robert Grenier, a former senior CIA official, and the
testimony of the government’s sole White House witness, Ari Fleischer, will focus on conversations
with defendant regarding Ms. Wilson which took place in June and early July 2003. See Indict.,
Count One, at ¶¶ 7, 11, 16. All known documents relating to these conversations have been provided
to defendant. The relevance of this testimony, like that of Marc Grossman, is to show that defendant
knew about Ms. Wilson’s employment and possible role in planning Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger as
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 11 of 39

12
early as June 2003, and no later than July 7, 2003. Neither the particulars of Mr. Wilson’s trip, nor
the views of CIA or White House officials regarding the results of the trip, are relevant to, or
necessary for preparing cross-examinations of, Messrs. Schmall, Grenier, or Fleischer. Nor is
defendant entitled to expansive discovery on the basis of speculations that government officials may
have been biased as a result of purported disputes among the various agencies concerning
intelligence issues.
With respect to Mr. Fleischer, defendant also asserts that press reports indicate that Mr.
Fleischer reviewed a report containing information related to Mr. Wilson’s wife that was sent to
former Secretary of State Colin Powell while Secretary Powell, Mr. Fleischer and others were en
route to Africa on Air Force One. Memo. at 25. If the press reports are correct, and if Mr. Fleischer
disclosed information concerning Mr. Wilson’s wife to reporters, defendant argues, then Mr.
Fleischer would have a motive to shade his testimony in this case. Id. The government has provided
defendant with a copy of the report in question. Defendant does not claim that Mr. Fleischer wrote,
reviewed, or even saw any other documents concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip, and does not establish any
other connection between Mr. Fleischer and any of the requested documents. Thus, there is no
support for defendant’s claim that the requested documents would be helpful to defendant in
preparing to cross-examine Mr. Fleischer.
Potential Defense Witnesses
Defendant further argues that he is entitled to discovery of all documents that would be
helpful in preparing to examine witnesses that may be called as defense witnesses at trial, including
the following individuals: (a) former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; (b) former
Secretary of State Colin Powell; (c) former CIA Director George Tenet; (d) “other current or former
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 12 of 39

13
CIA officials, including” Bill Harlow; and (e) Senior White House advisor Karl Rove. Defendant
cites, and research reveals, no authority for the proposition that the defendant is entitled to discover
all documents related to witnesses whom defendant anticipates calling as witnesses at trial. To the
contrary, it is settled law that the government has no obligation to produce prior statements, or
information reflecting negatively on the credibility, of witnesses called by the defense, much less
witnesses who may be called by the defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (which by its terms applies only
to witnesses called by the government) and United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1285 (6th Cir.
1988)(“the government need not disclose impeaching material in its possession relating to any
potential defense witness where that impeaching material does not meet the Brady test of being
material and exculpatory”); and United States v. Souffront, 338 F.3d 809, 824 (7th Cir. 2003) (When
ATF Agent was called by defense to impeach a government witness and to testify to defendant’s
state of mind, no Brady violation occurred when government did not disclose that agent was accused
by a former agent of participating in or covering up theft of jewelry and money by corrupt cop.
"Impeaching the testimony of their own witness is not favorable to the defense . . . and does not raise
the probability of a different verdict . . . This argument is without merit." (citations omitted)).
Given the limited nature of any admissible testimony that could be offered by the above
individuals, the need to prepare their testimony could not possibly justify defendant’s expansive
discovery demands in any event. For example, defendant asserts that he may call former Deputy
Secretary of State Richard Armitage as a defense witness for the purpose of testifying regarding “the
expected testimony of his former colleagues, Mr. Grossman and Mr. Powell,” Memo. at 23, n. 5
and, specifically, of establishing bias on the part of Under Secretary Grossman, Memo. at 23.
Defendant argues that “[i]f Mr. Armitage or another State Department official was in fact the
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 13 of 39

14
primary source for Mr. Novak’s article, Mr. Grossman’s testimony may be colored by either by his
personal relationship with Mr. Armitage or his concern for the institutional interests of the State
Department.” Id.
There is no precedent for a fact witness to be called to testify about the expected testimony
of another fact witness – much less precedent that an intention to do so entitles a defendant to
additional discovery. Putting aside defendant’s failure to explain how loyalty to Mr. Armitage or
to the State Department could rise to the level of causing Mr. Grossman to invent conversations with
defendant and testify to them under oath, defendant has provided no connection between the
requested materials and Messrs. Grossman, Armitage or Powell, and no basis for concluding that the
materials would aid him in preparing to establishing bias on the part of Mr. Grossman.
Similarly, defendant is not entitled to discovery of additional documents regarding Mr.
Wilson’s trip in order to prepare to examine former Secretary of State Colin Powell as a defense
witness. Defendant asserts that he is “entitled to examine Secretary Powell regarding his knowledge
of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger and his communications with other government officials about that
trip,” and that the State Department records concerning the trip will assist him in preparing to
conduct this inquiry. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails, however, to establish how Secretary Powell’s
knowledge concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip could be relevant to the perjury and false statement charges
contained in the indictment, or his defense to those charges.
Nor has defendant established how “[a]ny notes from the September 2003 meeting in the
Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (1) everyone knows that Mr.
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA
send her husband on a mission to Niger” (see Memo. at 15) would be helpful to defendant in
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 14 of 39

15
preparing his defense, even if such documents existed, and it is the understanding of the government
that there are no notes indicating that Secretary Powell made the purported statements.
Additionally, defendant asserts that he plans to question Secretary Powell concerning media
reports regarding a document containing information regarding Ms. Wilson sent to Secretary Powell
on Air Force One while Secretary Powell and others were en route to Africa between July 7 and July
12, 2003, and regarding the possibility that other government officials may have shared information
about Ms. Wilson with journalists while in Africa. Memo. at 24. Defendant fails to establish that
any documents other than that sent to Secretary Powell (which has been produced to defendant)
would be useful in preparing to examine Secretary Powell, or even that the topics concerning which
he plans to question Secretary Powell have any relevance to the issues of this case. Accordingly,
defendant’s desire to question Secretary Powell does not entitle him to additional discovery.
Defendant claims that Karl Rove will be a “key witness” in the trial, in that he will testify
concerning a conversation with defendant on July 10 or 11, 2003 regarding Robert Novak’s intent
to print a story regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment at the CIA, Indict., Count One, ¶ 21, and that
Stephen Hadley may “offer important testimony about discussions within the Administration
concerning the need to rebut Mr. Wilson’s statements about his trip and his conclusions,” as well
as “discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate the NIE” and George Tenet’s public
statements regarding the “sixteen words.” Memo. at 25-26. As indicated above, the government
does not intend to call Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley as witnesses at this time.
Nor has defendant established any connection between the documents defendant has
demanded and any relevant testimony Mr. Rove or Mr. Hadley could provide. The trial in this case
necessarily will focus on whether or not defendant committed perjury. While defendant may prefer
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 15 of 39

16
to put the conduct of others on trial, he is not entitled to do so. Nor is defendant entitled to discovery
so that he may examine witnesses at trial regarding their conduct and the conduct of others that is
not germane to the issue of whether defendant lied and obstructed justice.
Agencies By Which Potential Witnesses Are or Were Employed
The extraordinary scope of defendant’s request for documents is illustrated by the fact that
the request is not limited to documents directly connected with the individuals he has identified as
potential witnesses, or even by time frame. To the contrary, defendant argues that he is entitled to
“all CIA documents that concern (sic) Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger, including reports and subsequent
discussions of it,” and, at the very least, all documents concerning Mr. Wilson’s trip “generated, sent,
or received by CIA witnesses.’ Similarly, defendant argues that, “the government’s disclosure
obligations are not limited to the files of [the] particular White House witnesses” that defendant has
identified, but rather, extends to “all White House documents relating to Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger
that could undermine or corroborate the expected testimony of these witnesses, and other White
House documents that could be used to develop lines of questioning for their examinations at trial.”
Thus, in essence, defendant contends that the expected testimony of a witness triggers open
file discovery of that witnesses’ agency on any related topic, whether or not relevant at trial.
Defendant cites no legal authority in support of this claim, which flies in the face of the longestablished
limited nature of discovery in criminal cases, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 109,
United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d at 1251.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 16 of 39

17
B. Defendant is Not Entitled to Discovery of the Requested Documents on the Basis
that Such Documents Will Allow Him to Provide “Context” for Events Alleged
in the Indictment.
Defendant argues as an alternative ground for his discovery requests the need to establish
“context” for matters alleged in the indictment. Defendant claims that, in order to put the alleged
events in context, and specifically to establish that Ms. Wilson played a “peripheral” rather than an
important role in the controversy concerning the “sixteen words,” defendant is entitled to discovery
of the above-described documents as well as to:
All documents reflecting discussions within the government of whether to release a public
statement during the week of July 7, 2003 regarding the inclusion of the “sixteen words” in
the 2003 State of the Union Address, including all drafts of the July 11, 2003 statement
issued by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.
Memo. at 15, 27.
The government has produced to defendant all documents responsive to the above request
that were received from the Office of the Vice President, including notes of defendant and drafts of
the July 11, 2003 statement issued by CIA Director George Tenet. The government declined to seek
copies or produce additional drafts of the July 11, 2003 statement maintained by other agencies on
the ground that such documents would be irrelevant in the absence of any connection to defendant,
and also potentially duplicative of documents already produced.
In an attempt to recast the relevant issues at trial, defendant claims he is entitled to correct
the “distorted picture of the relevant events” presented in the indictment, including the
“exaggerati[on of] the importance government officials, including [defendant], attributed to Ms.
Wilson’s employment status prior to July 14, 2003,” and to present “a more complete and accurate
narrative” of the alleged events, and to establish that defendant “and other government officials”
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 17 of 39

18
viewed Ms. Wilson’s identity as at most a “peripheral issue.” Memo. at 27. Defendant argues that
information regarding bureaucratic infighting over responsibility for the “sixteen words” will help
the jury appreciate how defendant “may have forgotten or misremembered the snippets of
conversation the government alleges were so memorable.” Memo. at 3-4.
Though he might wish otherwise, this trial is not about the conduct or state of mind of
persons other than defendant. Indeed, the state of mind of other individuals is of negligible value
in determining whether defendant lied to the FBI and grand jury. In reality, it does not matter
whether Ms. Wilson’s role was thought to be important or peripheral by anyone other than defendant
and the discrete number of persons with and for whom he worked. Accordingly, it is clear that
documents from outside the OVP are not sought to establish “context” but rather to provide an
irrelevant distraction from the issues of the case.
Moreover, evidence from the CIA, State Department, and NSC about whether persons
working there thought the issue of Ms. Wilson’s employment was “peripheral” will not place in
context the state of mind of defendant and others working in the Office of Vice President at the
relevant time, nor explain whether defendant was likely to have forgotten conversations about the
topic in which he participated. In June 2003, when discussing Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Niger,
the Vice President advised defendant that Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the
Counterproliferation Division. Indict., Count One, ¶ 9. The evidence will show that the July 6,
2003, Op Ed by Mr. Wilson was viewed in the Office of Vice President as a direct attack on the
credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale
for the war in Iraq. Defendant undertook vigorous efforts to rebut this attack during the week
following July 7, 2003.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 18 of 39

19
At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President
Cheney, defendant’s immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr.
Wilson’s trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson’s wife. And,
in considering “context,” there was press reporting that the Vice President had dispatched Mr.
Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). 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, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson’s credibility if Mr. Wilson
were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism. The context for defendant’s
disclosures in the course of defending the Office of the Vice President will not be fleshed out in any
files of CIA or State Department or NSC employees that might reflect what they thought. Put
slightly differently, the thoughts and impressions of CIA, State Department, and NSC employees,
absent any evidence that these thoughts and impressions were conveyed to defendant, simply cannot
shed light on defendant’s state of mind at the time of his alleged criminal conduct. See United States
v. Secord, 726 F.Supp. 845, 848-49 (D.D.C. 1989) (“The subjective state of mind which Defendant
Secord wishes to prove could have arisen solely from conversations in which he participated,
correspondence which he himself read, meetings which he himself attended. . . . The point is simply
that Defendant’s state of mind can come only from what he hears or sees. Defendant is entitled to
discover materials which evidence his personal knowledge about or belief in the legality of the
Enterprise.”).
Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the
importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a
critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 19 of 39

20
Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose
certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with
reporter Miller – getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material
that would be classified but for that approval – were unique in his recollection. Defendant further
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 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).
Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or
his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus
defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he
was directed to engage in by the Vice President.
Likewise, documents from other agencies that defendant never saw will not provide context
for defendant’s grand jury testimony regarding these events. Defendant testified that he did not
discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife with reporter Judith Miller on July 8,
2003 and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that time that he had learned
about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment a month earlier from the Vice President. Nor could such
documents explain defendant’s testimony disclaiming having discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment
with various other government officials prior to July 10, 2003, or his testimony that he was “taken
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 20 of 39

21
aback” when journalist Tim Russert asked about Ms. Wilson’s employment with the CIA on July
12, 2003. Accordingly, none of the documents requested by defendant could possibly support the
defense that the specific perjury specifications are mere “snippets” of conversation he “may have
misremembered.”
C. Defendant is Not Entitled to the Requested Documents Related to the NIE.
Defendant further contends that he is entitled to additional discovery because the government
“informed [the defense] that it seeks to make an issue at trial of [defendant’s] alleged disclosures
of a portion of the content of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s Continuing
Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, known as the NIE.” Memo. at 10-11 (emphasis added).
Specifically, defendant claims that, in order to place this issue in “context,” he is entitled to
discovery of:
1. All documents relating to the possible declassification of the 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate (“NIE”)(in whole or in part); and
2. All documents relating to or reflecting public comments by government officials
about the NIE or its contents prior to July 18, 2003.
The government has produced to defendant all documents received from the OVP, which
would include any documents responsive to these requests, and is in the process of locating and
producing a limited number of additional responsive documents in the possession of the Special
Counsel although such documents were not authored or reviewed by defendant. The government
has declined to seek or produce additional responsive documents from other agencies unless such
documents reflect conversations and meetings in which defendant participated, on the ground that
such documents would be irrelevant to the defense. The government has also declined to produce
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 21 of 39

22
publicly available comments by government officials regarding this issue on the ground that they are
equally accessible to defendant.
As an initial matter, it is defendant’s conduct and testimony, rather than any whim of the
government, that makes defendant’s disclosure of the NIE an issue in this case. However, contrary
to defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to rummage through other agencies’ documents
concerning the NIE where defendant himself has testified that he understood that no one at those
agencies was aware of, or involved in, the declassification made known to him by the Vice President
or the disclosures he made to reporters Cooper and Miller.
The Relevance of the NIE to This Case
One of the key conversations that will be proved at trial took place between defendant and
reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel on the morning of July 8, 2003. Defendant testified in
the grand jury that he and Miller did not discuss the CIA employment of Ambassador Wilson’s wife,
Valerie Plame, on that occasion, and that he could not have done so because he had forgotten by that
time that he had learned about Ms. Wilson’s employment a month earlier from the Vice President.
Defendant further testified that when he spoke with reporter Tim Russert the following day, Russert
informed him that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and defendant was “taken aback.” Defendant
testified that he thought that the information was new to him, and that he made sure not to confirm
the information to Russert. Defendant thereafter testified that he repeated what he learned from
Russert to other reporters (including Cooper and Miller) on July 12, taking care to caution those
reporters that he did not know if the information were true or even if Ambassador Wilson even had
a wife.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 22 of 39

23
As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance
of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because
it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and
that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to
come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not
have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant
testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to
disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington,
then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security
law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document
amounted to a declassification of the document.
Defendant testified that he thought he brought a brief abstract of the NIE’s key judgments
to the meeting with Miller on July 8. Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other
things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium.
Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government
experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of
the President’s authorization that it be disclosed. Defendant testified that one of the reasons why he
met with Miller at a hotel was the fact that he was sharing this information with Miller exclusively.
In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that
attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.” Defendant discussed with Miller the
contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been
written by Wilson. Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 23 of 39

24
1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was
understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium. Later during the discussion about Wilson
and the NIE, defendant advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Indict.,
Count One, ¶ 17.
Defendant understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to talk to the press
about the NIE and Mr. Wilson on July 12, 2003, in place of then-Assistant to the President for Public
Affairs, Cathie Martin, the usual press contact person from OVP. This is relevant to show the
importance that defendant and his boss placed on the conversation concerning which he later
testified. During his conversations with the press that day, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time).
Thus, there is no way to present the relevant events concerning defendant’s discussions with
reporters about Ms. Wilson without discussing defendant’s role in disseminating the key judgments
of the NIE in those same conversations.
There is no basis for extending disclosure of documents related to the declassification and
disclosure of the NIE to documents from the NSC, State Department, CIA, or any other agency.
According to defendant, at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that
only three people – the President, the Vice President and defendant – knew that the key judgments
of the NIE had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even
in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials – including Cabinet level
officials – were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed
to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson’s trip and another classified
document dated January 24, 2003. Given that, there is no reasonable possibility that the requested
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 24 of 39

As part of his effort to justify in essence “open file” discovery concerning 8 the NIE,
defendant notes that “Mr. Hadley was active in discussions about the need to declassify and
disseminate the NIE . . . .” Defendant fails to mention, however, that he consciously decided not to
make Mr. Hadley aware of the fact that defendant himself had already been disseminating the NIE
by leaking it to reporters while Mr. Hadley sought to get it formally declassified. There is no reason
to root around in the files of the NSC or CIA or State Department given that no one at any of those
three agencies was aware of any declassification of the NIE prior to July 18, 2003. Since Mr. Hadley
was involved in efforts to declassify what Mr. Libby testified had already been declassified, Mr.
Hadley’s files will create confusion rather than providing context. The government is producing to
defendant Mr. Hadley’s notes of meetings and conversations in which both defendant and Mr.
Hadley participated, and in which the potential declassification of the NIE was discussed.
25
documents from agencies outside the Office of Vice President will shed any light on, or provide any
“context” for, what defendant knew, thought and did at the time of his critical conversations.8
D. Defendant is Not Entitled to the Requested Documents for Purposes of
Attempting to Establish that He Had No Motive to Lie.
Defendant also seeks discovery on the theory that the defense “has the right to make an
affirmative showing that [he] had no motive to lie to the FBI or the grand jury.” Memo. at 4.
Specifically, defendant argues that: (i) he did not believe Ms. Wilson’s employment status was
classified; (ii) he was not “part of a conspiracy to harm Mr. Wilson by disclosing his wife’s CIA
affiliation”; and (iii) he did not believe anyone who worked closely with him had done anything
wrong. Purportedly for these purposes, defendant seeks:
1. All documents or communications reflecting any possible attempt or plan by any
government official to punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson; and
2. All documents or information concerning the identity of any government official
outside the CIA who was aware prior to July 14, 2003 that Ms. Wilson worked for
the CIA.
As indicated above, while some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as
reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson, the government declined
to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation. The government has
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 25 of 39

As discussed above, the government has not produced to defendant documents that rela9 te
to the conduct of other subjects of the grand jury investigation unless there is some connection
between the document or its contents to defendant.
26
identified to the defense individuals outside the intelligence community who were aware prior to July
14, 2003 of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. However, the government has declined to identify to
the defense, or produce documents concerning, some government officials on the grounds that (a)
such officials are either subjects of the ongoing grand jury investigation or “innocent accused” whose
identities are protected from disclosure by Fed. Crim. P. 6(e), as this Court has held; and (b) such
materials are irrelevant to any issue in the case.
Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged
with any conspiracy offense. Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an
absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents
showing an “absence of a plot.” Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided
to defendant,9 and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong
desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and
after July 14, 2003.
Defendant’s request for discovery to show an absence of motive to lie or conceal his conduct
overlooks the fact that even the materials defendant appended to his motion show that in early
October 2003 (when defendant first gave his story) there would be great embarrassment to the
administration if it became publicly known that defendant had participated in disseminating
information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, and defendant would have had every reason to
assume he would be fired if his true actions became known. Then National Security Adviser Dr.
Condoleeza Rice publicly stated that she knew “nothing of any such White House effort to reveal
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 26 of 39

27
any of this, and it would certainly not be the way the president would expect his White House to
operate.” Memo. Exhibit M.
On September 29, 2003, the Washington Post reported that “two White House officials
leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson.” (Washington Post, “Bush Aides
Say They’ll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak,” by Mike Allen, September 29, 2003).
Also on September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary McClellan stated that:
There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards,
the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people
in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If
anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this
administration . . .
I've made it clear that there's been nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to
suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office as well.
When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice President's office as
well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html.
During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief
of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued
exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the
Vice President in having his name cleared. Though defendant knew that another White House
official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance
that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that
fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten
statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him:
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 27 of 39

28
People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I’ve talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information.
As a result of defendant’s request, on October 4, 2003, White House Press Secretary
McClellan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Libby (as well as Mr. Rove and Elliot Abrams) and
“those individuals assured me that they were not involved in this.” Memo. Exhibit I.
Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had
publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of
information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant’s specific request through the Vice President,
the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was “not involved in this.” The President
had vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information. In that context, defendant
proceeded to tell the FBI that he had merely passed information from one reporter (Russert) to other
reporters while disclaiming any knowledge of whether the information he passed was true, and
certainly unaware that he knew this classified information from government channels. Once that die
was cast, defendant repeated the story in a subsequent interview and during two grand jury
appearances.
Against this backdrop, defendant argues that he is entitled to rummage around in government
files in an effort to find documents that would somehow help him to establish he had no reason to
conceal his role in disseminating then-classified information. He offers no explanation for how the
categories of documents he seeks will assist in establishing his lack of motive, and as a result fails
to explain how the materials sought would enable him “significantly to alter the quantum of proof
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 28 of 39

29
in his favor,” 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8, or why there “is a strong indication that [the documents] will
play an important role” in enabling the defendant to respond to the charges in the indictment, id.
Absent such a showing, and in the face of specific evidence proffered by the government that does
set out defendant’s motive to lie, defendant’s argument that the requested discovery generally may
be useful in locating evidence of his lack of motive to lie can only be understood as a fishing
expedition of the sort that is not permitted by the criminal discovery rules.
E. Defendant is Not Entitled to the Requested Documents Under Brady.
The Brady doctrine does not entitle the defense to everything it would like to have but which
Rule 16 does not provide. Defendant simply asserts in three sentences that certain documents that
might exist must be Brady.
First, defendant asserts without elaboration that “Information ... that tends to show that Mr.
Libby did not improperly disclose the contents of the NIE is surely Brady material.” Memo at p. 34.
The question of whether defendant did anything improper in disclosing the NIE is not relevant to
whether defendant committed perjury by lying about something else, and therefore it cannot
constitute favorable evidence under Brady. To the contrary, proof that the disclosure was proper
would not negate proof that he committed perjury by lying about something else.
Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White
House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also
constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with
participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr.
Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material.
Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 29 of 39

To the extent that defendant would hang his hat on the argument 10 ument that another person or
persons outside the White House may have discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press
prior to July 14, 2003 (for whatever reason), any such evidence would not negate evidence that
multiple officials in the White House discussed her employment with reporters prior to (and after)
July 14. But again the existence vel non of concerted action by White House officials is not
dispositive of whether defendant committed perjury in describing what he did.
30
prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after,
July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what
evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish”
Wilson.10 Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot
is exculpatory.
Finally, defendant asserts, again without elaboration, that “information that tends to show that
government officials who knew that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA did not treat that information
as classified” is Brady material as well. (Memo. at 34.) Defendant is neither charged with disclosing
classified information nor with lying about what other officials thought about the classified nature
of Ms. Wilson’s employment. He is charged with perjury for lying under oath when he testified that
he thought he learned information about Wilson’s wife as if it were new from Tim Russert on July
8 when in fact the information was neither new to him (he was dispensing it the days before his
conversation with Russert) nor was it discussed with Mr. Russert. What other persons, particularly
persons outside the Office of the Vice President, thought about the classified nature of Wilson’s
wife’s employment is irrelevant -- not Brady material.
F. Defendant is Not Entitled to the CIA Criminal Referral or Related Documents.
Defendant seeks production of the CIA’s criminal referral to the Justice Department, as well
as all documents referenced in that referral. Beyond a naked assertion that “Mr. Libby’s need for the
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 30 of 39

31
documents in this case is clear,” defendant makes no attempt to explain how the criminal referral and
related materials are “material to preparing the defense” within the meaning of Rule 16.
The criminal referral and related documents simply bear no relationship to the perjury and
false statement offenses charged in the indictment. The author of the referral, a CIA attorney, will
not be a government witness, the referral does not summarize statements made by persons who will
be government witnesses, and the referral occurred well before defendant’s alleged commission of
the crimes charged in the indictment. Under these circumstances, defendant cannot plausibly
contend that “there is a strong indication that [the criminal referral and related materials] will play
an important role,” 3/10/06 Mem. Op. at 8, in preparing his defense against the charges in the
indictment.
Moreover, Rule 16(a)(2) provides that “[e]xcept as Rule 16(a)(1) provides otherwise, this
rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal
government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in
connection with investigating or prosecuting the case.” Other than his generic assertion that all of
the documents he seeks are within the scope of Rule 16(a)(1)(E) because they are material to
preparing the defense, defendant cites no provision of Rule 16(a)(1) that overcomes this exclusion,
which clearly applies to the CIA referral documents. See United States v. Goulding, 26 F.3d 656,
661 (7th Cir. 1994) (in tax prosecution, district court correctly invoke Rule 16(a)(2) in refusing to
order production of IRS criminal referral documents); Gollaher v. United States, 419 F.2d 520, 527-
28 (9th Cir. 1969) (judge properly relied upon Rule 16(a)(2) in refusing disclosure of inter-agency
communications sought on ground that they might have shown that the Federal Housing
Administration’s attitude in pursuing loan fraud prosecution was one of bias).
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 31 of 39

32
Finally, the criminal referral contains the legal analysis and opinions of a CIA attorney,
communicated to an attorney in the Justice Department, and thus is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, as well as pre-decisional preliminary evaluations and recommendations of government
officials that are covered by the deliberative process privilege. Defendant represents that at present
he seeks “only the unprivileged facts contained within the referral documents,” Memo. at 33, but the
presentation and analysis of facts relating to the leak of Ms. Wilson’s name and employment are
closely intertwined. Moreover, even if certain portions of the criminal referral and related
documents are not protected by privilege, the non-privileged portions are not discoverable under
Rule 16 simply because defendant demands them. As this Court made clear in its March 10, 2006
Memorandum Opinion, Rule 16 sets a higher bar, and may not serve as a vessel from which
defendant can conduct fishing excursions through government files. Although defendant’s request
for the CIA referral and related materials should be denied outright in light of his complete failure
to articulate a basis for their production under Rule 16, the government would not object to providing
these materials to the Court in camera if the Court would find that of assistance.
G. Neither the Office of the Vice President, the White House Office, the National
Security Council, nor the State Department Should Be Considered Aligned
With the Prosecution Based on White House Counsel’s Directive to Cooperate
or the Agencies’ Compliance with Subpoenas.
In its March 10, 2006 Memorandum Opinion, the Court concluded that the Office of the Vice
President (OVP) is “closely aligned” with the prosecution, and that the prosecution had “knowledge
of and access to” documents in the possession of OVP for Rule 16 purposes. In its discussion of the
alignment issue, the Court cited the undisputed fact that White House Counsel’s Office had sent a
message declaring “full cooperation” with the investigation. The Court also cited what it called the
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 32 of 39

The government is not asking the Court to reverse 11 its prior ruling with respect to the
documents that the Court ordered the government to produce. The government fully intends to abide
by the Court’s ruling and produce the documents specified by the Court. The government seeks
reconsideration of only the Court’s rationale for ordering the production of those documents.
12For clarity, it is important to note the distinctions between the various government entities.
The defendant describes the White House as including “the Executive Office of the President, the
NSC and the OVP.” (Memo. at 18.) That is incorrect. The Executive Office of the President is the
umbrella entity within which there are many additional components, such as the White House Office,
the OVP, and the NSC, among others. See Office of the Federal Register, Nat’l Archive and Records
Admin., The United States Government Manual 1999/2000 v., 90-108 (1999).
33
“rather free flow of documents”from the OVP to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). (March 10,
2006 Op. at 13-15.) In his Third Motion to Compel, defendant cites the Court’s March 10 Opinion
and claims that “the Executive Office of the President, the NSC and the State Department are also
‘aligned with the prosecution’” because of the “rather free flow of documents” sent by those entities
to the OSC. (Memo. at 18.)
The government respectfully requests that the Court reconsider the ruling that OVP is
“closely aligned” with the prosecution,11 and further asks that the Court find that the White House
Office (also known as the Office of the President), the NSC, and the State Department are also not
aligned with the prosecution.12 The pledge of cooperation with the investigation made by White
House Counsel’s office in September 2003 does not and cannot dictate any alignment with the
prosecution. A precedent holding that a pledge of cooperation dictates alignment for discovery
purposes creates a serious disincentive for agencies to cooperate fully with Department of Justice
investigations because such cooperation would potentially subject the agency to wide-ranging
discovery requests by defendants and the need to litigate questions of privilege concerning agency
documents and information. A finding of alignment based on that rationale would be unprecedented.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 33 of 39

It is worth noting that executive branch agencies routinely 13 cooperate with the Department
of Justice in investigations. If cooperation with subpoena requests or other cooperation with the
Department of Justice is akin to alignment with the Department of Justice, the result could be that
any executive branch agency relevant to the case would be considered aligned with the prosecution.
The Court rejected this result in its March 10 Opinion. (March 10, 2006 Op. at 7 n.10.)
14Put another way, this is not at all like the situation in United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d
1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1992), where the close working relationship between Washington
Metropolitan Police (MPD) and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia aligned MPD with
34
Moreover, although the Department of Justice sought documents from various government
entities by letter request in the initial stages of the investigation, as soon as Special Counsel became
involved in January 2004, all documents were obtained through grand jury subpoenas. To the extent
there was a steady flow of documents produced, that flow of documents was in response to a steady
flow of subpoenas. A precedent holding that compliance with subpoenas aligns an agency with the
prosecution creates a perverse incentive for an agency to attempt to quash any and all subpoenas it
receives, or to otherwise avoid full compliance with grand jury subpoenas lest its cooperation deem
it as part of the prosecution team with concomitant discovery obligations.13
Although OVP provided documents in response to subpoenas issued to it, it has not acted on
the prosecution’s behalf in this investigation and is not closely connected to the prosecution. See
e.g., Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281 (1991) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose information under
Rule 16 and Brady extends to “others acting on the government’s behalf in the case”) (quoting Kyles
v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995))); United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1249 (11th Cir.
2003) (possession, custody, or control of the government for Rule 16 purposes includes government
agencies “closely connected to the prosecutor”). The same is true for the White House Office, the
NSC, and the State Department – they provided documents in response to subpoenas, but they have
not acted on the prosecution’s behalf and are not closely connected to the prosecution.14 Thus, in
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 34 of 39

the prosecution and obligated a federal prosecutor to search for and disclose a specific file related
to a witness.
In this case, the prosecution has provided defendant 15 endant with all documents produced by OVP
in connection with this investigation.
35
the government’s view, neither the OVP, the White House Office, the NSC, nor the State
Department are aligned with the prosecution, and documents in the physical possession of those
entities are not within the government’s possession, custody or control.
In the event that the Court declines to reconsider its prior ruling regarding OVP’s alignment
with the prosecution, the government asks that the Court find that the White House Office, the NSC
and the State Department are differently situated than OVP in terms of alignment. One distinction
is that OVP was defendant’s primary employer, and, as a result, defendant likely had or could have
had access to a large majority of, if not the entirety of, the OVP documents, including those that were
ultimately produced by OVP to the prosecution. Cf. United States v. Poindexter, 727 F. Supp. 1470,
1478 (D.D.C. 1989) (noting as a similarity between two cases that found alignment between the
prosecution and an agency the fact that in both the agency from which the criminal defendant was
seeking documents was the agency of his or his co-conspirator’s employment).15 That is not the case
with documents from other governmental agencies. Moreover, other than the fact that the White
House, the NSC, and the State Department provided documents to the prosecution, defendant has
offered no explanation in his brief as to why those entities should be considered aligned with the
prosecution.
Another important distinction regarding the White House Office in particular is that the
Supreme Court has “long recognized the ‘unique position in the constitutional scheme’ that [the
White House Office] occupies.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 698 (1997) (quoting Nixon v.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 35 of 39

36
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 (1982)). See also Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381-82 (2004). Thus, the Supreme Court instructs that, with respect to
discovery addressed to the White House Office, “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the
Chief Executive . . . is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including
the timing and scope of discovery.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707. See generally, Cheney, 542 U.S. at
381-92. Applying these principles to Rule 16, the Court should conclude that the prosecution does
not have custody or control over material in the possession of the White House Office. It is a near
impossibility that subordinate DOJ officers would have custody or control over material in the
possession of the White House Office, which houses the President’s closest staff.
The considerable potential for disrupting and complicating this litigation, as well as ongoing
government functions, is a reason for this Court to exercise caution in finding alignment and in
expanding discovery substantially beyond what is required by Rule 16, Jencks, and the Constitution.
First, most of defendant’s requests implicate extensive classified information, while others raise
issues of executive privilege. Many are so broadly drawn as to require production of large amounts
of irrelevant material, and to require the disclosure of sensitive information about third parties who
are not government witnesses and who could not provide information exculpatory of defendant.
Second, virtually all of the information sought by defendant involves sensitive governmental policy
deliberations at the highest levels of government. In such a context, this Court should be reluctant
to order discovery beyond that which is reasonably related to the preparation of the defense to the
charges in the indictment. Finally, as discussed above, the degree to which subpoenaed government
entities complied with, rather than contested, subpoenas issued by independent investigators made
it possible to conduct this investigation in very sensitive circumstances. Disclosure of materials well
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 36 of 39

37
beyond that which is required under the Rules and necessary to the preparation of a defense may chill
the willingness of future presidents and high-ranking government officials to assist criminal
investigations of conduct by staff members holding sensitive positions. The government submits that
these weighty considerations directly contradict defendant’s assertion that providing the documents
defendant requests from the other agencies would pose no “significant burden.” (Memo. at 18.)
Indeed, quite the opposite is true.
Defendant also argues that he should be granted more discovery, not less discovery, because
“thorny issues of national security classification and executive privilege may need to be resolved.”
(Memo. at 5.) Defendant should be provided the discovery to which he is entitled. If he is not
entitled to certain discovery, he should not be granted it merely because the documents he is seeking
implicate “thorny” issues that will complicate, not expedite, litigation.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 37 of 39

38
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court deny
the defendant’s third motion to compel discovery.
Respectfully submitted,
/s
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
Office of the United States Attorney
Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-5300
Dated: April 5, 2006
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 38 of 39

39
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this 5th day of April, 2006, I caused true and correct
copies of the foregoing to be served on the following parties by electronic mail:
William Jeffress, Esq.
Baker Botts
The Warner
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2400
Facsimile: 202-585-1087
Theodore V. Wells, Esq.
Paul Weiss
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Facsimile: 212-373-2217
Joseph A. Tate, Esq.
Dechert LLP
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
Facsimile: 215-994-2222
John D. Cline, Esq.
Jones Day
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Facsimile: 415-875-5700
Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Special Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
1400 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
202-514-1187
By: /s/
Kathleen M. Kedian
Deputy Special Counsel
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 39 of 39

DEMS NAME TIMES BUSH LIED ABOUT LEAKS

Story broken By Raw Story.com. In addition to providing the live links to the pieces I find, I am also posting them entirely in case they "disappear" from the sites for one rovian reason or another. LS

DEMS NAME TIMES BUSH LIED ABOUT LEAKS

Dems call for Bush to 'come clean,' cite 8 denials
04/06/2006 @ 4:07 pm
Filed by RAW STORY

After today's claim by Ex-VP chief of staff "Scooter" Libby that he was lead to believe the President had approved the leak of classified information to reporters, Democrats have called for the President to set the record straight about his alleged involvement.

"President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in a brief statement. "It's time for the President to come clean about his involvement in the leak case."

The statement was accompanied by eight of the numerous instances in which Bush or his spokesman, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, denied the President had knowledge of the leak.

That incidents identified by Democrats follow:

President Bush, 9/30/03:

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

President Bush, 9/30/03:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."

President Bush, 10/28/03:

"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information."

President Bush, 6/10/04:

Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

President Bush, 10/28/03:

"I want to know the truth. ... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

President Bush, 7/18/05 issue of USA Today:

"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

White House Press Secretary, 10/7/03:

"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

LIBBY SAYS BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAKS

By Mr. Murray Waas of the National Journal

"LIBBY SAYS BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAKS"

Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, April 6, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has testified that President Bush authorized him to disclose the contents of a highly classified intelligence assessment to the media to defend the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, according to papers filed in federal court on Wednesday by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received "approval from the President through the Vice President" to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate.

Position papers, expert contacts and other resources from Policy Council members are available below.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby testified to a federal grand jury that he had received "approval from the President through the Vice President" to divulge portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons, according to the court papers. Libby was said to have testified that such presidential authorization to disclose classified information was "unique in his recollection," the court papers further said.

Libby also testified that an administration lawyer told him that Bush, by authorizing the disclosure of classified information, had in effect declassified the information. Legal experts disagree on whether the president has the authority to declassify information on his own.

The White House had no immediate reaction to the court filing.

Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war.

In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack," a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war.

Bush and Cheney authorized the release of the information regarding the NIE in the summer of 2003, according to court documents, as part of a damage-control effort undertaken only days after former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged in an op-ed in The New York Times that claims by Bush that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger were most likely a hoax.

According to the court papers, "At some point after the publication of the July 6 Op Ed by Mr. Wilson, Vice President Cheney, [Libby's] immediate supervisor, expressed concerns to [Libby] regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA officer at the time, and Cheney, Libby, and other Bush administration officials believed that Wilson's allegations could be discredited if it could be shown that Plame had suggested that her husband be sent on the CIA-sponsored mission to Niger.

Two days after Wilson's op-ed, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and not only disclosed portions of the NIE, but also Plame's CIA employment and potential role in her husband's trip.

Regarding that meeting, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because Vice President Cheney believed it to be "very important" to do so, the court papers filed Wednesday said. The New York Sun reported the court filing on its Web site early Thursday.

Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."

Additionally, Libby "testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the Vice President, whom [Libby] considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document."

Addington succeeded Libby as Cheney's chief of staff after Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury on Oct. 28, 2005 on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice in attempting to conceal his role in outing Plame as an undercover CIA operative.

Four days after the meeting with Miller, on July 12, 2003, Libby spoke again to Miller, and also for the first time with Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, during which Libby spoke to both journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her possible role in sending her husband to Niger.

Regarding those conversations, Libby understood that the Vice President specifically selected him to "speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson," the court papers said. Libby also testified, Fitzgerald asserted in the court papers, that "at the time of his conversations with Miller and Cooper, he understood that only three people -- the President, the Vice President and [Libby] -- knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified.

"[Libby] testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials-including Cabinet level officials-were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003." It is unclear from the court papers what the January 24, 2003 document might be.

During those very same conversations with the press that day Libby "discussed Ms. Wilson's CIA employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time)," the court papers further said.

Although the special prosecutor's grand jury investigation has not uncovered any evidence that the Vice President encouraged Libby to release information about Plame's covert CIA status, the court papers said that Cheney had "expressed concerns to [Libby] regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet, according to people familiar with Cheney's interviews with the special prosecutor.

Tenet has told investigators that he had no specific recollection of discussing Plame or her role in her husband's trip with Cheney, according to people with familiar with his statement to investigators.

Two senior government officials said that Tenet did recall, however, that he made inquiries regarding the veracity of the Niger intelligence information as a result of inquires from both Cheney and Libby. As a result of those inquiries, Tenet then had the CIA conduct a new review of its Niger intelligence, and concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had in fact attempted to purchase uranium from Niger or other African nations. Tenet and other CIA officials then informed Cheney, other administration officials, and the congressional intelligence committees of the new findings, the sources said.

Six days after Libby's conversation with Cooper and Miller regarding Plame, on July 18, 2003, the Bush administration formally declassified portions of the NIE on Iraqi weapons programs in an effort to further blunt the damage of Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration misused the faulty Niger intelligence information to make the case to go to war. It is unclear whether the information that Bush and Cheney were said to authorize Libby to disclose was the same information that was formally declassified.

One former senior government official said that both the president and Cheney, in directing Libby to disclose classified information to defend the administration's case to go to war with Iraq and in formally declassifying portions of the NIE later, were misusing the classification process for political reasons.

The official said that while the administration declassified portions of the NIE that would appear exculpatory to the White House, it insisted that a one-page summary of the NIE which would have suggested that the President mischaracterized other intelligence information to go to war remain classified.

As National Journal recently disclosed, the one-page summary of the NIE told Bush that although "most agencies judge" that an Iraqi procurement of aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort", the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

Despite receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The former senior official said in an interview that he believed that the attempt to conceal the contents of the one-page summary were intertwined with the efforts to declassify portions of the NIE and to leak information to the media regarding Plame: "It was part and parcel of the same effort, but people don't see it in that context yet."

Although the court papers filed Wednesday revealed that Libby had testified that Bush and Cheney had authorized him to disclose details of the NIE, two other senior government officials said in interviews that Libby had asserted that Cheney had more broadly authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq as part of an administration effort to make the case to go to war.

In another instance, Libby had claimed that Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack."

Other former senior government officials said that Bush directed people to assist Woodward in the book's preparation: "There were people on the Seventh Floor [of the CIA] who were told by Tenet to cooperate because the President wanted it done. There were calls to people to by [White House communication director] Dan Bartlett that the President wanted it done, if you were not co-operating. And sometimes the President himself told people that they should co-operate," said one former government official.

It is unclear whether Libby will argue during his upcoming trial that these other authorizations by both the President and Vice President show that he did not engage in misconduct by disclosing Plame's CIA status to reporters, or that he considered these other authorizations giving him broad authority to make other disclosures.

Fitzgerald has apparently avoided questioning Libby, other government officials, and journalists about other potential leaks of classified information to the media, according to attorneys who have represented witnesses to the special prosecutor's probe. Outside legal experts said this might be due to the fact that other authorized leaks might aid Libby's defense, and because Fitzgerald did not want to question reporters about other contacts with Libby because of First Amendment concerns.

In a Feb. 17, 2006 letter to John D. Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote that he believed that disclosures in Woodward's book damaged national security. "According to [Woodward's} account, he was provided information related to sources and methods, extremely sensitive covert actions, and foreign intelligence liaison services."

Woodward's book contains, for example, a detailed account of a January 25, 2003 briefing that Libby provided to senior White House staff to make the case that Saddam Hussein had aggressive programs underway to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Two former government officials said in interviews that the account provided sensitive intelligence information that had not been cleared for release. The book referred to intercepts by the National Security Agency of Iraqi officials that purportedly showed that Iraq was engaging in weapons of mass destruction program.

Much of the information presented by Libby at the senior White House staff meeting was later discarded by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and then-CIA Director George Tenet as unreliable, and would not have either otherwise been made public.

One former senior official said: "They [the leakers] might have tipped people to our eavesdropping capacities, and other serious sources and methods issues. But to what end? The information was never presented to the public because it was bunk in the first place."

In the letter to Negroponte, Sen. Rockefeller complained: "I [previously] wrote both former Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet and Acting DCI John McLaughlin seeking to determine what steps were being taken to address the appalling disclosures in [Woodward's book]. The only response that I received was to indicate that the leaks had been authorized by the Administration."

-- Previous coverage of pre-war intelligence and the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas. Brian Beutler provided research assistance for this report.

Sign up now to get four free issues of National Journal or two free weeks of CongressDaily.

LIBBY IMPLICATES BUSH IN LEAK CASE

This mind blowing piece just broke on Raw Story.com. The original story from The New York Sun will not download so Raw Story is providing excerpts when they can obtain them. LS

RAW STORY PIECE "BUSH AUTHORIZED LEAK OF IRAQ INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE


Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says
04/06/2006 @ 10:38 am

Filed by RAW STORY

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case, THE NEW YORK SUN reports Thursday.

The filing can be found here.

The paper's site isn't loading. RAW STORY will excerpt more when available.

Excerpts:


"The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter."

In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was ‘pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was ‘very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

FULL STORY HERE

WORKERS IN OHIO ACCUSED OF FUDGING RECOUNT

I found this piece on the Cleveland Plain Dealer.com via Raw Story.com LS

CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER ON PROBLEMS WITH OHIO RECOUNT

Workers accused of fudging ’04 recount
Prosecutor says Cuyahoga skirted rules
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter

After the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County election workers secretly skirted rules designed to make sure all votes were counted correctly, a special prosecutor charges.

While there is no evidence of vote fraud, the prosecutor said their efforts were aimed at avoiding an expensive - and very public - hand recount of all votes cast. Three top county elections officials have been indicted, and Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter says more indictments are possible.

Michael Vu, executive director of the Cuyahoga County elections board, said workers followed procedures that had been in place for 23 years. He said board employees had no objection to doing an exhaustive hand count if needed, meaning they had no motive to break the law.

Internet bloggers have cried foul since 2004 about election results in Ohio, one of the key states in deciding the election. They have been tracking Baxter's investigation with online posts about the indictments.

Baxter's prosecution centers on Ohio's safeguards for ensuring that every vote is counted.

Baxter charges that Cuyahoga election workers - mindful of the monthlong Florida recount in 2000 - not only ignored the safeguards but worked to defeat them during Ohio's 2004 recount.

Candidates for president from the Green and Libertarian parties requested the Ohio recount. State laws and regulations specify how a recount works.

Election workers in each county are supposed to count 3 percent of the ballots by hand and by machine, randomly choosing precincts for that count.

If the hand and machine counts match, the other 97 percent of the votes are recounted by machine. If the numbers don't match, workers repeat the effort. If they still don't match exactly, the workers must complete the recount by hand, a tedious process that could take weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But the fix was in at the Cuyahoga elections board, Baxter charges.

Days before the Dec. 16 recount, workers opened the ballots and hand-counted enough votes to identify precincts where the machine count matched.

"If it didn't balance, they excluded those precincts," Baxter said.

"The preselection process was done outside of any witnesses, without anyone's knowledge except for [people at] the Board of Elections."

On the official recount day, employees pretended to pick precincts randomly, Baxter says. Dozens of Cuyahoga County election workers sat at 20 folding tables in front of dozens of witnesses and reporters.

They did the hand and machine count of 3 percent of the votes 34 of the 1,436 precincts and when the totals matched, the recount was completed by machines.

The recount gave Kerry 17 extra votes and took six away from Bush.

But observers suspected that the precincts were not randomly chosen and asked a board worker about it, said Toledo attorney Richard Kerger. The worker acknowledged that there had been a precount.

Kerger wrote a letter to Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, complaining and asking for an investigation. Mason recused himself, and Baxter was appointed special prosecutor. He brought elections workers before a grand jury to find out what happened.

"They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full countywide hand count," Baxter said.

Everyone expected the recount to "be conducted in accordance of the law," he said.

Vu said the precincts were chosen as they had been in the past, by a Democrat and a Republican in the ballot department.

Because of Baxter's investigation, Vu declined to comment on whether the board's longtime procedures involve precounting precincts before the recount.

Vu acknowledged that the selection of precincts was not completely random because precincts with 550 votes or fewer were not used.

Nor were precincts counted where the number of ballots handed out on Election Day failed to match the number of ballots cast.

Vu said the board also had asked for legal opinions from the prosecutor's office before and after the election to ensure all rules were followed.

Kathleen Martin, who headed the civil division at the prosecutor's office and worked with the board on the issues, has since died.

"If Kathleen Martin was still alive, she could put so much light on this," Vu said.

Regardless, he said, the board was prepared for a full hand recount.

"Why do all that work to prepare for the election, conduct it, audit it, canvass and then not meet this last obligation?" Vu said.

"Our plan was to regroup after Christmas and just work through it."

Baxter has said he can't understand why the three people indicted all managers - continue to work at the election office. None has the same duties they had in 2004.

Kathleen Dreamer was manager of the board's ballot department. Rosie Grier was assistant manager. Jacqueline Maiden was Elections Division director and its third-highest-ranking employee. All have been charged with misdemeanor and felony counts of failing to follow the state elections law.

A May 8 trial date is set for Dreamer and Grier, but Baxter wants to combine all three cases, including Maiden's, who was indicted later.

Kerger said he was surprised by the charges.

"We wrote, not to have any criminal charges, but just to find out what happened," he said. "The special prosecutor has the ability to conduct an investigation and not file any charges."

Kerger said he believes there are two reasons, generally, why an elections board would precount before a recount. The first is to change the results of the vote, which he does not believe happened.

The second, he speculated, was that "the workers were so tired and didn't want to hassle with doing a hand recount."

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

jmazzolini@plaind.com, 216-999-4563



© 2006 The Plain Dealer
© 2006 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved.

SEVENTY SEVEN TV STATIONS AIRED FAKE NEWS IN 10 MONTHS

Proof, finally, of something I've known intuitively for some time - perhaps since 2000. This is why I bother to blog.

Fellow Texans - before you read below - a quick reminder to vote in the run-off primary for U.S. Senate Democrat candidate Barbara Radnofsky. Early voting is April 3-7. You need to do this. VOTE...VOTE AND VOTE, PLEASE! LS

RAW STORY.COM ON FAKE TV NEWS

77 TV stations aired 'fake news reports'

04/05/2006 @ 10:57 pm

Filed by Ron Brynaert

A study by a group that monitors the media reveals that, over a ten month span, 77 television stations from all across the nation aired video news releases without informing their viewers even once that the reports were actually sponsored content, RAW STORY has found.

Advertisement

One "news report" that aired on three stations relied on a video news release (VNR) produced by a PR firm on behalf of General Motors which was even apparently based on a "false claim."

Center for Media and Democracy's Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed is "a multimedia report on television newsrooms' use of material provided by PR firms on behalf of paying clients," containing video footage of the 36 video news releases (VNRs) cited in the report, plus a map and spreadsheet of the stations cited.

General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One are among the companies who produced VNRs with the help of three PR firms, and "[m]ore than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety."

An Oklahoma City FOX station owned by Sinclair is pegged as the "report's top repeat offender," airing five VNRs in full on its news broadcasts, with "the publicist's original narration each time."

Three stations "not only aired entire VNRs without disclosure, but had local anchors and reporters read directly from the script prepared by the broadcast PR firm."

A firm called Medialink produced a VNR for General Motors which was left largely unchanged when aired on news broadcasts in Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

"GM, who introduced the first manufacturer web site in 1996, has recently lowered prices, in some cases by thousands of dollars, on all of their models as a direct result of the customers' ability to comparison shop on the Internet," intoned Medialink's Kate Brookes in the spot.

But the Center for Media and Democracy blasts GM's "historical claim" as "fake."

"A simple dated search for "automotive web site" in the Nexis news database revealed a press release from August 1995 in which Volkswagen heralded the launch of their web portal," the report states. "It wasn't until February 1996 that General Motors announced gm.com in their own press release."

A comparison between the General Motors VNR and one of the news broadcasts can be seen at this link.

Last year the New York Times published an article called "Under Bush, a new age of prepackaged TV news" - written by David Barstow and Robin Stein - which reported on the stealthy use of VNRs created by government agencies that crept into network news broadcasts.

The Times revealed that even though Radio-Television News Directors Association's "code of ethics" specifies to "clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders," the Federal Communications Commission has "never disciplined a station for showing government-made news segments without disclosing their origin."

THE HAMMER'S ATTEMPTS TO DISMANTLE DEMOCRACY

As I wrote last night, good riddance to the bug man of Texas.

Below are a few more very interesting and insightful articles written about The Hammer. LS

Excerpt: "THE HAMMER IS NAILED"

The corporate lobbies made out like bandits, literally writing their own subsidies into law. Big Pharma got hundreds of billions in a prescription drug law that prohibited Medicare from using its buying power to lower prices. Big oil got billions in subsidies while gouging Americans at the pump. As the Financial Times reported, earmarks in legislation—special favors that often ducked the normal legislative process—expanded to $62 billion last year. The tax code expanded from 40,506 pages in 1995 to 66,498 pages 10 years later, as legions of tax breaks and dodges became law. Since the “conservative revolution” came to power in 1994, the number of lobbyists exploded four-fold to 36,000. Of these, 29 are former DeLay staffers, not counting the two who have now pled guilty in the corruption probe.

TOM PAINE.COM ON DELAY

DELAY CAUGHT TRASHING HILLARY CLINTON ON MSNBC

THE HUFFINGTON POST ON DELAY AND HILLARY

I, DELAY By Sidney Blumenthal on Truthout.org

Excerpt:

When President George W. Bush assumed office, one-party rule commenced. DeLay served as Bush's "Hammer." Back in Texas, between the political operations of both of them, the Democrats had been shattered as a party. Now DeLay and Bush worked together nationally to accomplish the same goal. Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, who had been instrumental in the Texas takeover, was the go-between in the relationship. And the go-between in the Rove-DeLay relationship was a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff.

While exercising absolute power in the House, DeLay was determined to augment it further by thoroughly rigging the outcome of congressional elections in Texas. He created a political action committee, raised millions from his K Street allies, and poured the money into the Texas legislature, which in turn redrew the lines of congressional districts to wipe out the existing Democrats. DeLay's scheme succeeded in giving him an even bigger Republican margin. But the district attorney of Travis County, Texas investigated and indicted two of his aides and finally DeLay himself for illegally using corporate campaign funds.

SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL ON DELAY

"NO, REALLY, WHY DID DELAY QUIT?" By Tim Grieve of Salon.com

Ken sent this great article this morning. LS

BREAKING Excerpt: (This information came to Mr. Grieve while writing the piece, apparently).

Update: I said earlier that the Times report comes closest to saying that it was the Abramoff investigation that did DeLay in. But that was before I saw Knight Ridder reporter Ron Hutcheson's story, which has several lawyers saying that as far as the law is concerned, DeLay is done.

In a story that includes many fine quotes, here's the best one: "The guy has a hide of titanium," John P. Flannery II, a former federal prosecutor, says of DeLay, dismissing the congressman's argument that he was afraid his race would get too nasty. "This is not about his election; this is about his defense of the criminal investigation. The circle is closing on him for a federal indictment."

TIM GRIEVE'S SALON.COM PIECE ON DELAY

RON HUTCHESON'S PIECE ON DELAY REFERENCED ABOVE BY MR. GRIEVE

RON HUTCHESON ON DELAY

FASTING AND PRAYING TO LEAVE TEXAS

ON TOM DELAY

Leaving Texas, dude? Sellout, greed/power monger, low life criminal and bully. Adios, bon voyage and good riddance. You wasted our state for your own personal gain and now you are moving on to Virginia, while fasting and praying for guidance. For what purpose are you praying and fasting? Surely your change of "heart" is not inspired by God but is based upon the personal reality that you must face. Like....your own financial security (you have boatloads of attorney's fees, dude, and therefore you need more gainful employment.) Once again, where the GOP is concerned it is all about the money. Nothing more. Nothing less. And yet, somehow God comes into the mix with money. Go figure....

The mainstream media is abuzz about the DeLay resignation so I won’t comment much except to say that many of us in southeast Texas are dancing in the streets, despite what the mainstream media fantasizes about the blow to Dem contenders here. As usual, the MSM are slow in grasping reality.

I’ve posted some of the best pieces I’ve found on the DeLay resignation today.

Will Rivers Pitt of Truthout.org (see “He’s Gone” below) begins his article with lyrics from a song by the Grateful Dead.


Rat in a drain ditch,
Caught on a limb,
You know better
But I know him.
Like I told you,
What I said,
Steal your face
Right off your head.

Now he's gone, gone,
Lord he's gone, he's gone.
Like a steam locomotive,
Rollin' down the track
He's gone, gone,
Nothing's gonna bring him back.
He's gone.

- The Grateful Dead, "He's Gone"

CHRONOLOGY OF CRIME

From the Houston Chronicle via Raw Story.com

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS THAT TOOK DELAY DOWN

DELAY SEEKS GUIDANCE THROUGH FASTING

Fasting!? Really! Fasting? In what sense? Like…to do without WHAT? Corporate jet travel? Five Star restaurant cuisine, compliments of some corporate type high roller in exchange for WHAT? Luxury hotels and golf….nevermind…..you get it. LS

By Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post.

DELAY SEEKS GUIDANCE THROUGH FASTING


DAILY KOS ON DELAY

EVERY REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS ENABLED DELAY

FIREDOGLAKE.COM LAYS OUT EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF DELAY

This is a great blog, by the way. I believe the authors are attorneys who live in Oregon. LS

FIREDOGLAKE ON DELAY


“HE’S GONE” By Will Rivers Pitt of Truthout.org

”HE’S GONE”


ANOTHER CORRUPTED REPUBLICAN

REMEMBER BLACKWELL OF OHIO? THE ONE WHO SHUT DOWN A RECOUNT IN 2004? WELL, IT SEEMS THAT HE OWNS STOCK IN DIEBOLD

Of course Blackwell said he didn’t know he owned stock in the company. REALLY!? I guess the devil made his stock broker do it. LS

From the Houston Chronicle.

OHIO’S BLACKWELL OWNS STOCK IN DIEBOLD

FORMER GOP STRATEGIST WRITES GOP HAS BECOME GOD'S OWN PARTY

"HOW THE GOP BECAME GOD'S OWN PARTY"

Considering who Mr. Keven Phillips is, this piece is pretty stunning. I've posted the entire article from THE WASHINGTON POST.COM

(This is one you will want to download, read carefully and save). LS

How the GOP Became God's Own Party

By Kevin Phillips
Sunday, April 2, 2006; B03

Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.

We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.

Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country's domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion's new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.

The United States has organized much of its military posture since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks around the protection of oil fields, pipelines and sea lanes. But U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East has another dimension. In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.

Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860.

I have a personal concern over what has become of the Republican coalition. Forty years ago, I began a book, "The Emerging Republican Majority," which I finished in 1967 and took to the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, for which I became the chief political and voting-patterns analyst. Published in 1969, while I was still in the fledgling Nixon administration, the volume was identified by Newsweek as the "political bible of the Nixon Era."

In that book I coined the term "Sun Belt" to describe the oil, military, aerospace and retirement country stretching from Florida to California, but debate concentrated on the argument -- since fulfilled and then some -- that the South was on its way into the national Republican Party. Four decades later, this framework has produced the alliance of oil, fundamentalism and debt.

Some of that evolution was always implicit. If any region of the United States had the potential to produce a high-powered, crusading fundamentalism, it was Dixie. If any new alignment had the potential to nurture a fusion of oil interests and the military-industrial complex, it was the Sun Belt, which helped draw them into commercial and political proximity and collaboration. Wall Street, of course, has long been part of the GOP coalition. But members of the Downtown Association and the Links Club were never enthusiastic about "Joe Sixpack" and middle America, to say nothing of preachers such as Oral Roberts or the Tupelo, Miss., Assemblies of God. The new cohabitation is an unnatural one.

While studying economic geography and history in Britain, I had been intrigued by the Eurasian "heartland" theory of Sir Halford Mackinder, a prominent geographer of the early 20th century. Control of that heartland, Mackinder argued, would determine control of the world. In North America, I thought, the coming together of a heartland -- across fading Civil War lines -- would determine control of Washington.

This was the prelude to today's "red states." The American heartland, from Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico to Ohio and the Appalachian coal states, has become (along with the onetime Confederacy) an electoral hydrocarbon coalition. It cherishes sport-utility vehicles and easy carbon dioxide emissions policy, and applauds preemptive U.S. airstrikes on uncooperative, terrorist-coddling Persian Gulf countries fortuitously blessed with huge reserves of oil.

Because the United States is beginning to run out of its own oil sources, a military solution to an energy crisis is hardly lunacy. Neither Caesar nor Napoleon would have flinched. What Caesar and Napoleon did not face, but less able American presidents do, is that bungled overseas military embroilments could also boomerang economically. The United States, some $4 trillion in hock internationally, has become the world's leading debtor, increasingly nagged by worry that some nations will sell dollars in their reserves and switch their holdings to rival currencies. Washington prints bonds and dollar-green IOUs, which European and Asian bankers accumulate until for some reason they lose patience. This is the debt Achilles' heel, which stands alongside the oil Achilles' heel.

Unfortunately, more danger lurks in the responsiveness of the new GOP coalition to Christian evangelicals, fundamentalists and Pentecostals, who muster some 40 percent of the party electorate. Many millions believe that the Armageddon described in the Bible is coming soon. Chaos in the explosive Middle East, far from being a threat, actually heralds the second coming of Jesus Christ. Oil price spikes, murderous hurricanes, deadly tsunamis and melting polar ice caps lend further credence.

The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington's multiple deceptions and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies -- the GOP coalition is unlikely to turn back -- is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grass roots.

Four decades ago, the new GOP coalition seemed certain to enjoy a major infusion of conservative northern Catholics and southern Protestants. This troubled me not at all. I agreed with the predominating Republican argument at the time that "secular" liberals, by badly misjudging the depth and importance of religion in the United States, had given conservatives a powerful and legitimate electoral opportunity.

Since then, my appreciation of the intensity of religion in the United States has deepened. When religion was trod upon in the 1960s and thereafter by secular advocates determined to push Christianity out of the public square, the move unleashed an evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal counterreformation, with strong theocratic pressures becoming visible in the Republican national coalition and its leadership.

Besides providing critical support for invading Iraq -- widely anathematized by preachers as a second Babylon -- the Republican coalition has also seeded half a dozen controversies in the realm of science. These include Bible-based disbelief in Darwinian theories of evolution, dismissal of global warming, disagreement with geological explanations of fossil-fuel depletion, religious rejection of global population planning, derogation of women's rights and opposition to stem cell research. This suggests that U.S. society and politics may again be heading for a defining controversy such as the Scopes trial of 1925. That embarrassment chastened fundamentalism for a generation, but the outcome of the eventual 21st century test is hardly assured.

These developments have warped the Republican Party and its electoral coalition, muted Democratic voices and become a gathering threat to America's future. No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system.

Conservative true believers will scoff at such concerns. The United States is a unique and chosen nation, they say; what did or did not happen to Rome, imperial Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain is irrelevant. The catch here, alas, is that these nations also thought they were unique and that God was on their side. The revelation that He apparently was not added a further debilitating note to the late stages of each national decline.

Over the last 25 years, I have warned frequently of these political, economic and historical (but not religious) precedents. The concentration of wealth that developed in the United States in the bull market of 1982 to 2000 was also typical of the zeniths of previous world economic powers as their elites pursued surfeit in Mediterranean villas or in the country-house splendor of Edwardian England. In a nation's early years, debt is a vital and creative collaborator in economic expansion; in late stages, it becomes what Mr. Hyde was to Dr. Jekyll: an increasingly dominant mood and facial distortion. The United States of the early 21st century is well into this debt-driven climax, with some analysts arguing -- all too plausibly -- that an unsustainable credit bubble has replaced the stock bubble that burst in 2000.

Unfortunately, three of the preeminent weaknesses displayed in these past declines have been religious excess, a declining energy and industrial base, and debt often linked to foreign and military overstretch. Politics in the United States -- and especially the evolution of the governing Republican coalition -- deserves much of the blame for the fatal convergence of these forces in America today.

Kevin Phillips is the author of "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" (Viking).


© 2006 The Washington Post Company

MORE ON THE REAL ENEMIES

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST.COM: MORE WHITE HOUSE STAFF CHANGES COMING

Bush can shake up his staff to oblivion but it won't change a thing. When the Emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes. It is as simple as that. Article from the Washington Post via Buzz Flash.com. LS

BUSH WHITE HOUSE CHANGES COMING

CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS DISILLUSIONED WITH THE GOP

OK… so the GOP under Bush sold their souls to right wing Christian extremists in order to get elected and re-elected. Bush & Co. shamelessly promised a Taliban type religious state for America but Bush, alas, could not, of course, deliver, as he and his handlers (ROVE) certainly knew and had no intention of doing in the first place. Indeed, the religious extremists have been had, as was all of the country, really, when the bush people were “elected.” Why were we, the American people, collectively “had?” Because, in my humble opinion, and, as I've mentioned more than several times in the past, the bush people are fixated merely on money, not religion, nor principle or anything else for that matter, though they will most unabashedly and shamelessly use religion and whatever else suits them to sell their twisted money making ideology to realize their goals. (Like right now there is a bush/delay PR stunt in play - a fabricated "War on Christians" probably imposed to deflect all of the bad stuff happening in the GOP world of abysmal failure.)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch of tiresome, yet frightening life changing events due to Bush policies, which party can afford to be affiliated with this group of disenfranchised religious extremists? Certainly not the Democrats because we are supposed to be a party of tolerance. Right? One cannot be sure nowadays and to embrace such a group of intolerant extremists would lose the likes of me to an Independent Party.

McCain is obviously trying to backpedal to win the hearts and minds of the religious right for his own political gain, though he trashed this group and Bush in 2000. If the Dems, in any way, shape for form, emulate McCain’s whoring tactics, they are totally toast with me. The more I see and read on politicians the more disillusioned and disappointed I become. Will the future candidates stand on principle or will they succumb to whatever it takes to get the vote?

Where is that person of quality, integrity and character we so sorely need and yet so woefully lack? Surely there is someone. LS

RAW STORY ON CHRISTIAN RIGHT LOSE FAITH IN GOP

ROVE MAY GET NAILED AFTER ALL

According to Mr. Jason Leopold who writes for Truthout.org, Fitzgerald knew the identity of the leaker all along. He broadened the investigation when he suspected Libby and Rove could be guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. LS

FITZGERALD KNEW IDENTIFY OF LEAKER FROM THE START

WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IN BAGHDAD? THE TRUTH FOR A CHANGE? THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT FOR NOT REPORTING THE INFORMATION BELOW.

Ken sent this horrifying piece from Salon.com. It is written by young Iraqi woman who keeps a blog "Baghdad Burning" that describes real events in Iraq. I am posting the entire piece below, including Ken's comments. LS

I'm sending this along instead of a photo of how peaceful and lovely it is in Istanbul. (In case you've missed some recent posts, a GOP congressional candidate has posted a photo of Istanbul with a caption that tells you it's Baghdad, in order to illuminate 1) how sweet it is in Baghdad and 2) just what dastardly liars are all media that are not Fox.) -K

Uncertainty and horror in Baghdad
Things are so bad here now, the TV warns us not to trust the police. And more and more people, like my cousin, must pay terrible visits to the morgue.
By Riverbend

Editor's note: Baghdad Burning, the blog written by a young Iraqi woman named "Riverbend," has given readers around the world an intimate, and devastating, look at the situation in Iraq. Salon occasionally runs postings from her blog.

SALON.COM

Apr. 03, 2006 | I sat late last night switching between Iraqi channels (the half dozen or so I sometimes try to watch). It's a late-night tradition for me when there's electricity, to see what the Iraqi channels are showing. Generally speaking, there still isn't a truly "neutral" Iraqi channel. The most popular ones are backed and funded by the different political parties currently vying for power. This became particularly apparent during the period directly before the elections.

I was trying to decide between a report on bird flu on one channel, a montage of bits and pieces from various latmiyas [Shiite processions in which the faithful flog themselves] on another channel and an Egyptian soap opera on a third channel. I paused on the Sharqiya channel, which many Iraqis consider to be a reasonably toned channel (and which during the elections showed its support for Allawi in particular). I was reading the little scrolling news headlines on the bottom of the page. The usual -- mortar fire on an area in Baghdad, an American soldier killed here, another one wounded there, 12 Iraqi corpses found in an area in Baghdad, etc. Suddenly, one of them caught my attention and I sat up straight on the sofa, wondering if I had read it correctly.

E. was sitting at the other end of the living room, taking apart a radio he later wouldn't be able to put back together. I called him over with the words, "Come here and read this -- I'm sure I misunderstood…" He stood in front of the television and watched the words about corpses and Americans and puppets scroll by and when the news item I was watching for appeared, I jumped up and pointed. E. and I read it in silence and E. looked as confused as I was feeling.

The line said:

The translation: "The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area."

That's how messed up the country is at this point.

We switched to another channel, the "Baghdad" channel (allied with Muhsin Abdul Hameed and his group), and they had the same news item, but instead of the general "coalition forces" they had "American coalition forces." We checked two other channels. Iraqiya (pro-Dawa) didn't mention it and Forat (pro-SCIRI) also didn't have it on its news ticker.

We discussed it today as it was repeated on another channel.

"So what does it mean?" my cousin's wife asked as we sat gathered at lunch.

"It means if they come at night and want to raid the house, we don't have to let them in," I answered.

"They're not exactly asking your permission," E. pointed out. "They break the door down and take people away -- or have you forgotten?"

"Well, according to the Ministry of Defense, we can shoot at them, right? It's trespassing -- they can be considered burglars or abductors," I replied.

The cousin shook his head, "If your family is inside the house, you're not going to shoot at them. They come in groups, remember? They come armed and in large groups -- shooting at them or resisting them would endanger people inside of the house."

"Besides that, when they first attack, how can you be sure they don't have Americans with them?" E. asked.

We sat drinking tea, mulling over the possibilities. It confirmed what has been obvious to Iraqis since the beginning -- the Iraqi security forces are actually militias allied to religious and political parties.

But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can't even trust its own personnel, unless they are "accompanied by American coalition forces."

It really is difficult to understand what is happening lately. We hear about talks between Americans and Iran over security in Iraq, and then the American ambassador in Iraq accuses Iran of funding militias inside of the country. Today there are claims that Americans killed between 20 and 30 men from Sadr's militia in an attack on a husseiniya [Shiite religious centers named after the imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed] yesterday. The Americans are claiming that responsibility for the attack should be placed on Iraqi security forces (the same security forces they are constantly commending).

All of this directly contradicts claims by Bush and other American politicians that Iraqi troops and security forces are in control of the situation. Or maybe they are in control -- just not in a good way.

They've been finding corpses all over Baghdad for weeks now -- and it's always the same: holes drilled in the head, multiple shots or strangulation, like the victims were hanged. Execution, militia style. Many of the people were taken from their homes by security forces -- police or special army brigades. Some of them were rounded up from mosques.

A few days ago we went to pick up one of my female cousins from college. Her college happens to be quite close to the local morgue. E., our cousin L., and I all sat in the car, which, due to traffic, we parked slightly farther away from the college to wait for our other cousin. I looked over at the commotion near the morgue.

There were dozens of people -- mostly men -- standing around in a bleak group. Some of them smoked cigarettes, others leaned on cars or pickup trucks. Their expressions varied -- grief, horror, resignation. On some faces, there was an anxious look of combined dread and anticipation. It's a very specific look, one you will find only outside the Baghdad morgue. The eyes are wide and bloodshot, as if searching for something, the brow is furrowed, the jaw is set and the mouth is a thin frown. It's a look that tells you they are walking into the morgue, where the bodies lay in rows, and that they pray they do not find what they are looking for.

The cousin sighed heavily and told us to open a couple of windows and lock the doors -- he was going to check the morgue. A month before, his wife's uncle had been taken away from a mosque during prayer -- they've yet to find him. Every two days, someone from the family goes to the morgue to see if his body was brought in. "Pray I don't find him ... or rather ... I just -- we hate the uncertainty." My cousin sighed heavily and got out of the car. I said a silent prayer as he crossed the street and disappeared into the crowd.

E. and I waited patiently for H., who was still inside the college, and for L., who was in the morgue. The minutes stretched and E. and I sat silently -- small talk seeming almost blasphemous under the circumstances. L. came out first. I watched him tensely and found myself chewing away at my lower lip, "Did he find him? Inshalla he didn't find him…" I said to no one in particular. As he got closer to the car, he shook his head. His face was immobile and grim, but behind the grim expression, we could see relief. "He's not there. Hamdulilah [Thank God]."

"Hamdulilah." E. and I repeated the words in unison.

We all looked back at the morgue. Most of the cars had simple, narrow wooden coffins on top of them, in anticipation of the son or daughter or brother. One frenzied woman in a black abaya was struggling to make her way inside, two relatives holding her back. A third man was reaching up to untie the coffin tied to the top of their car.

"See that woman -- they found her son. I saw them identifying him. A bullet to the head." The woman continued to struggle, her legs suddenly buckling under her, her wails filling the afternoon, and although it was surprisingly warm that day, I pulled at my sleeves, trying to cover my suddenly cold fingers.

We continued to watch the various scenes of grief, anger, frustration and, every once in a while, an almost tangible relief as someone left the morgue having not found what they dreaded most to find -- eyes watery from the smell, the step slightly lighter than when they went in, having been given a temporary reprieve from the worry of claiming a loved one from the morgue.