Next At Libby Trial: An Immunity Issue

Ex-Cheney Aide's Attorneys Want More Information About Ari Fleischer's Immunity

(CBS/AP)  Attorneys for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby want more information about an unusual immunity-from-prosecution deal that government lawyers gave former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in the CIA leak case.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says that in early 2004, as his investigation into who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters was heating up, Fleischer stepped forward with an offer to prosecutors: Promise no prosecution and he would help their case.

Fleischer acknowledged being one of the leakers, but he wouldn't say a word without a promise of immunity.

Deputy Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said Fleischer will explain that he wanted immunity because he had found a story online which said there was a criminal investigation into the possible disclosure of a covert agent — and he knew he had conveyed information to reporters that Scooter Libby previously had conveyed to him.

Zeidenberg said when he read this, "it was one of those moments where your heart goes in your throat." The next day, Fleischer hired an attorney.

The government wants to introduce the article Fleischer read to shed some light on Fleischer's state of mind. The defense fought vigorously to keep the article out of evidence, fearing that it would be prejudicial to Libby.

Prosecutors normally insist on an informal account of what a witness will say before agreeing to such a deal. It's known in legal circles as a proffer, and Fitzgerald said Thursday that he never got one from Fleischer, who was chief White House spokesman for the first 2½ years of President Bush's first term.

"I didn't want to give him immunity. I did so reluctantly," Fitzgerald said in court Thursday. "I was buying a pig in a poke."

Defense attorneys are skeptical. Fleischer is expected to testify Monday against Libby, who is accused of lying and obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation. Attorneys are preparing court documents demanding to know exactly what Fleischer promised in exchange for immunity.

"I'm not sure we're getting the full story here," defense attorney William Jeffress said in court.

Once the deal was struck in February 2004, Fleischer revealed that he had discussed Plame with reporters in July 2003, days before leaving his job at the White House. He also said he learned about Plame from Libby, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Fleischer's testimony is significant because he says he talked to Libby about Plame days before Libby told the FBI he was surprised to learn it from a reporter.

Court documents show what Fleischer told the grand jury: that he had had lunch with Libby on July 7, 2003 and during that lunch, Libby told Fleischer that Wilson's wife had sent her husband on a trip to Africa to examine intelligence reports indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Niger, Hester reports.

Fleischer described the lunch as being "kind of weird" and that Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion." Fleischer "recalled that Libby 'added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t.'"

Libby's attorneys want details about Fleischer's agreement to cast the defendant as someone who's pointing fingers to protect himself. Fitzgerald says he doesn't have to disclose his conversations with Fleischer because they weren't about specific testimony.

"It wasn't as if someone said, 'Here's what I can give you about Mr. Libby. Is that good enough? You know, will that give us immunity?'" Fitzgerald said. "That wasn't it."

The Fleischer gamble is the second such arrangement that prosecutors are known to have made with leakers in the case.

At the onset of the investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he told authorities that he was the source behind columnist Robert Novak's story that revealed Plame's identity and triggered the probe.

Fitzgerald has not discussed the arrangement with Armitage but said Thursday that he granted immunity to Fleischer believing only that he had "relevant information."

The deal Fitzgerald made was unusual enough that Libby's defense lawyers questioned whether it could be true. They suggested that Fitzgerald got a secret summary of Fleischer's testimony — a deal they want to discuss with jurors when Fleischer takes the stand against Libby on Monday.

Defense attorneys said they will ask U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to force Fitzgerald to reveal what Fleischer promised him. Fitzgerald told Walton that no promises were made.

"We got no specifics," he said.

[sbetty]

Frankly6 you are without a doubt the best informed person in this room

[sbetty]

I would like to address the accusation that Sandy Burger stole documents. Actually Sandy made copies of his own memorandum and took those not the original documents. There was nothing in the paper that was detrimental to Clinton. The press has seen the documents,
sandy wanted then to refresh his memory about a book he was writing.

[dallison7]

ROVE AND BARTLETT SUBPOENAED!!

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said he continues to explore for wrongdoing, including whether Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in retaliation for her husband's public criticism of the president.

IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY NOW!!

[randalds]

When was her last covert operation???

Posted by janem4 at 08:25 PM : Jan 26, 2007

Jane you have asked this question dozens of times and dozens of times I and others have answered it. Are your ears really that full of crud that you can't hear? Or perhaps your eyes are "blinded by the light" of your messiah Bush?

Either way, once again, her last covert operation was approximately 4 years before she was outed by Cheney via Libbey. She was back at the home office in Langley as a promotion for many years of excellent service in the field. Got it? Maybe not. Here, listen close.

FOUR YEARS JANE!!!! HER LAST COVERT OPERATION WAS FOUR YEARS BEFORE CHENEY OUTED HER VIA LIBBEY!!!!

Got it now?

[emhawks]

Cheney is the mother of all liars. Karl Rove isn't far behind.

[clemenhagen1]

You simply are deluded if you buy the garbage that the media is so left-wing biased. On the contrary they are bought and paid for by the right. That was the purpose of the telecommunication acts and elimination of the fairness doctrines: to free up the wealthy elites to dominate the news. How aggressively did the media cover the Jeff Gannon story? Gay male prostitutes staying in the White House overnight, and then lobbing softball questions to President Lightweight by day. Did the liberal media ever seek to get behind the story of who actually leaked the memo that Dan Rather used on Bush's National Guard evasion of duty? Didn't think so. The truth, my friend Janem, is that the Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's of the world have convinced you that the media is biased and that Christmas is under attack. The reality? The fascists have a bought and paid for media that focuses on celebrity and *** and other titillations, but rarely delves into the serious issues of how we have been consistently lied into foreign wars to enrich corporate elites.

[clemenhagen1]

Janem & Crash: Robert Novak not only exposed Valerie Plame, he revealed a CIA front-company, Brewster-Jennings. When Brewster-Jennings appeared in the paper, governments, embassies, and terror networks all over the world instantly knew that anyone remotely associated with Brewster-Jennings was a potential spy, informant, or collaborator. This act sent the clear message that cooperation with the United States government did not come with any assurance of anonymity. In a War on Terror, where human intelligence is perhaps the most vital element in the entire endeavor, I can think of anything more detrimental to our efforts. Those of you who cannot see the significance of this betrayal seriously need to revisit your commitment to our national security. If Cheney, Rove, Libby, and the others can sell out covert operatives for political vendettas, I guess I will never know what real treason looks like. In the meantime, according to CIA veteran Larry Johnson, the CIA did a thorough damage assessment, which revealed extensive damage. To think that an entire company, Brewster-Jennings, could be exposed without serious consequences for any foreign national who ever associated with that company, is simply not logical. There were serious consequences to this blatant act of treasonand you on the right can continue to parrot your Limbaughesque protestations - %u201CMuch Ado About a Desk-Jockey%u201D - but that merely reveals how deeply mired in denial you truly are.

[frankly6]

janem4

What you are doing is ignoring one story and changing the subject. If you are implying that this story is not news and is only being covered because of the so called "liberal media" you are wrong on both count. This story is news because it's now gone to trial and because it implicates people at the highest levels of our government in a conspiracy to silence a critic by destroying the career of his spouse and sacrificing national security to do so.

[bluestardad]

OK here is your chance, don%u2019t just set in front of your computer and complain spouting meaningless rants of sludge, do something about it! This is the contact address for your Senator! Send them a message of your opinion. All Class Two Senators are up for Reelection in 2008. Be respectful even if they do not deserve it because their office does! http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[karlimhof]

A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a TYRANT, is unfit to be the Ruler of a FREE PEOPLE." Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776

Congress! Awake! Impeach Bush & Cheney now.

[frankly6]

janem4

Are you really this thick or do you have your reality filter on?

The CIA demanded that this investigation take place because THEY considered exposing the identity of such a covert operative could do serious harm to their efforts to protect national security. Ironicly, she was working on WMD and nuclear proliferation through a cover company called Brewster Jennings. The entire operation had to be rolled up over night and everyone who was cooperating with them had to either go into hiding or risk being arrested or killed. I am amazed at the lengths to which you will go to justify the unjustifiable.

According to Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief, Plame's specialty was "recruiting agents, [and] sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction."

Like, for example, Pakistan. Or Turkey.

Novak revealed this just a couple of days after her husband publicly critisised Bush an co.'s use of intelligence that they knew was fake to justify their case for war. Novak revealed on TV a few days later that Valerie Plame's alleged employer %u2013 Brewster Jennings & Associates %u2013 was a "nonexistent" CIA front company.

[feelfree1]

One Israeli-firster vs. another. This could be interesting. I'm not sure that Fleisher will not find a way to help Libby, though. Ari is a runny sack of ***, but he is a master word-smith.

[Syndicate]

well said

[random_radar]

As a juror, I would never accept the testimony of a witness who cut a deal with the government. Jail-house informant, immunity from prosecution, or any other coercive arrangement is an incentive to lie. Don't trust the testimony of anyone under the government's thumb.

I also wouldn't convict anyone in a sting operation. By definition, the government agents are breaking the law in sting operations. Why should I convict someone of a crime when government agents are accomplices in breaking the law? If the government can't obey their own laws, I don't have any sympathy with their trumped up cases.