[Mb-civic] Trial Could Pit Libby's Interests Against Bush's - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Trial Could Pit Libby's Interests Against Bush's

By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A02

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, 
is expected to plead not guilty to charges that he lied and obstructed 
justice in the CIA leak probe when he is arraigned Thursday, setting the 
stage for a possible courtroom fight in which Libby's interests could 
collide with those of the Bush White House, according to several 
Republican officials.

Libby, who was charged with five felonies, is putting the finishing 
touches on a new legal and public relations team. It will argue in court 
and in public that he is guilty of nothing more than having a foggy 
memory and a hectic schedule, according to people close to him. He is 
scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court before Judge Reggie B. Walton.

As Libby prepared for a court battle, Cheney made plans for life without 
his closest adviser. Cheney yesterday named longtime counsel David 
Addington as his new chief of staff and John Hannah as national security 
adviser. Both were questioned in the Libby indictment.

If Libby's case goes to trial, Addington and Hannah are only two of the 
many White House officials -- including Cheney himself -- who could be 
forced to testify about how they handled intelligence, dealt with the 
media and built the argument for the Iraq war, according to people close 
to the case. Republicans worry that Libby's court fight will force 
President Bush to deal with the prospect of top officials testifying and 
embarrassing disclosures of how the White House operates and treats critics.

It is also possible, they note, that Libby will strike a plea agreement 
and avert a public trial.

"Obviously, the best thing for the Republican Party is to have this all 
end as quickly as possible," said former representative Vin Weber 
(R-Minn.), a close White House adviser. "But at the end of the day, you 
cannot ask a guy who all of us think is an upstanding and honorable guy 
to give up his legal rights."

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald initially set out to determine 
whether any administration official had illegally disclosed the identity 
of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame as part of an effort to 
discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had 
harshly criticized the administration's use of intelligence in the 
run-up to the Iraq war. After a 22-month investigation, a federal grand 
jury charged Libby with lying and obstructing justice during the probe.

Criminal defense lawyers say Cheney would probably be called as a 
witness in any trial, to verify and recount the conversation he had with 
Libby on June 12, 2003. At that time, Cheney allegedly told Libby that 
Plame worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division.

A senior White House adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to 
discuss the sensitive topic, said the Bush team believes it dodged a 
bullet when Fitzgerald charged only Libby on Friday and then pointedly 
said in his news conference that the indictment should not be read as a 
condemnation of the war or its run-up.

The aide said a trial would be "mostly contained" to Cheney's office, 
adding that most senior Cheney aides "will have to testify." Still, a 
number of White House aides will probably be summoned to testify, which 
could be a political and practical distraction for Bush well into 2006, 
another person close to the White House said.

The senior adviser said the situation will become a much bigger problem 
if Rove is indicted.

Fitzgerald appeared prepared to indict Rove heading into last week for 
making false statements, according to three people close to the probe. 
But that changed during a private meeting last Tuesday between 
Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. It's not clear precisely 
what happened in that meeting, but two sources briefed on it said Luskin 
discussed new information that gave Fitzgerald "pause."

That evening, Fitzgerald's investigative team called Adam Levine, a 
member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak. 
An investigator questioned Levine about an e-mail Rove had sent Levine 
on July 11, 2003 -- the same day Rove discussed Plame with Time magazine 
reporter Matthew Cooper, according to Dan French, Levine's attorney.

The e-mail, which did not mention Plame, ended with Rove telling Levine 
to come see him. The investigator wanted details of that conversation, 
which took place within an hour or so of the Cooper-Rove chat, according 
to a person familiar with the situation. Levine told investigators they 
did not discuss Plame.

Part of Rove's defense has been that he was very busy man who simply 
forgot to tell investigators about his conversation with Cooper. If the 
e-mail "was exculpatory at all, it was most likely a small piece of a 
much larger mosaic of information," French said.

A source familiar with the discussion between Rove and Fitzgerald said 
the Tuesday meeting was about a lot more than "just an e-mail from 
Levine." He would not elaborate.

Rove remains a focus of the CIA leak probe. He has told friends it is 
possible he still will be indicted for providing false statements to the 
grand jury.

"Everyone thinks it is over for Karl and they are wrong," a source close 
to Rove said. The strategist's legal and political advisers "by no means 
think the part of the investigation concerning Karl is closed."

Cooper's attorney, Dick Sauber, said Fitzgerald certainly meant it when 
he told Luskin last week that Rove remains in legal jeopardy and under 
investigation. "It wouldn't surprise me knowing how careful he is and 
how much he doesn't want to be seen as trigger-happy, that he is going 
through each of those things [that Rove presented] and seeing if they 
can be verified or not," Sauber said.

"But no prosecutor wants to be embarrassed in court by something he 
didn't know. And no prosecutor, especially Pat Fitzgerald, wants to be 
seen as unfair -- especially in this kind of matter with so much at stake."

Yesterday, Wilson delivered a speech in which he said Rove should lose 
his job regardless of whether he knowingly used Plame's name or revealed 
her CIA connection. "This is a firing offense," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected that idea and said Rove 
was at work, engaged in meetings and enjoying Bush's full confidence. 
McClellan said the White House will not comment on the leak because the 
investigation is ongoing and it does not want to prejudice the Libby case.

McClellan, who famously told reporters and the public in 2003 that Libby 
and Rove had assured him they had no roles in the leak, also defended 
his own credibility. McClellan said he wishes he could say more, but 
that he is confident he has been honest and forthcoming. People close to 
the investigation said Libby and Rove misled the White House spokesman.

Fitzgerald's original grand jury was released from service Friday, after 
its term expired. Courthouse officials said he is likely to "borrow" a 
grand jury already convened to investigate additional crimes if needed, 
and could wrap up his investigation in less than two weeks. It is not 
uncommon for a prosecutor to quickly present his case to a new grand 
jury and ask for an indictment, they said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101494.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051102/6ea7f89a/attachment.htm