From the Republican talking heads on TV, I understand that Shyster
Libby will claim that he wasn't guilty of perjury, obstruction of
justice, etc. when he lied to FBI agents and a Grand Jury since
Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. So the thing the agents and jury
were investigating wasn't a crime, so lying about a non crime isn't a
crime, etc..

Apparently the defense can tie the prosecution up in knots by
demanding classified information from the CIA about what Valerie Plame
was doing. My question is, is this really a defense? Must the
prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what was being
investigated was a crime? If not, can the judge throw out requests
for classified information since that information is irrelevant to
whether Libby perjured himself?

RHR

RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> writes:From the Republican talking heads on TV, I understand that ShysterLibby will claim that he wasn't guilty of perjury, obstruction ofjustice, etc. when he lied to FBI agents and a Grand Jury sinceValerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. So the thing the agents and jurywere investigating wasn't a crime, so lying about a non crime isn't acrime, etc..

This defense might just barely work for the Obstruction of
Justice charge, but I don't see how it could be effective for
the charges of perjury or lying to federal agents. It's
illegal to perjure oneself in front of a grant jury or lie to
a federal agent, whether or not the thing one is lying about
is material to a crime.

The other odd thing about this defense is that it appears that
to mount it, Libby will have to essentially admit to lying.
If that happens, then the prosecution will presumably drive
home the point to the jury that if there was no crime to cover
up, why did Libby lie?
Apparently the defense can tie the prosecution up in knots bydemanding classified information from the CIA about what Valerie Plamewas doing. My question is, is this really a defense? Must theprosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what was beinginvestigated was a crime?

No, I don't think so.
If not, can the judge throw out requestsfor classified information since that information is irrelevant towhether Libby perjured himself?

Yes, the judge has discretion to disallow demands from the
defense for certain documents. I don't know whether the judge
has a high enough security classification, but if he does,
then he might end up reviewing some of the documents privately
to decide whether they are material to the case and should be
turned over to the defense.

If the judge does prohibit some documents from being entered
into evidence, that'll be good grounds for an appeal if Libby
is convicted, thus drawing out the process and wasting the
taxpayers' money for several more years.

"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:53omm19hkde5ggmge7ni1e9o7dtroqs7i9@4ax.com... From the Republican talking heads on TV, I understand that Shyster Libby will claim that he wasn't guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. ...

I wonder how many prepaid legal spammers have promised him that he could
beat the rap if he'll just sign up for their $26-a-month plan.

In article <53omm19hkde5ggmge7ni1e9o7dtroqs7i9@4ax.com>,
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
From the Republican talking heads on TV, I understand that Shyster Libby will claim that he wasn't guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. when he lied to FBI agents and a Grand Jury since Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. So the thing the agents and jury were investigating wasn't a crime, so lying about a non crime isn't a crime, etc..

This shouldn't matter. Lying about something that "isn't a crime" can
still be perjury. Especially since the prosecutor's response is that
the only reason it "isn't a crime" - in other words, that no one was
charged with the crime - was because Libby's obstruction and perjury
prevented them from pursuing the underlying crime.
Apparently the defense can tie the prosecution up in knots by demanding classified information from the CIA about what Valerie Plame was doing. My question is, is this really a defense?

It may be - for example, whether or not she really was an agent, for how
long, whether she was an analyst, etc.

From what I've heard, there will be lots of similar issues to work out
re: executive privilege and Libby's communications with Rove, Bush,
Cheney, et. al.
Must the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what was being investigated was a crime?

I don't think so - just that the grand jury was a lawful proceeding.
The fact that ultimately no one was indicted for a crime or that perhaps
there was no actual crime committed doesn't retroactively render the
process improper.
If not, can the judge throw out requests for classified information since that information is irrelevant to whether Libby perjured himself?

Depends on the specific information, but yes, the judge can deny defense
requests and motions for discovery or disclosure of irrelevant materials.

On 4 Nov 2005, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
Republican talking heads on TV . . . [say they speculate] . . . Libby will claim that he wasn't guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. when he lied to FBI agents and a Grand Jury since Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. So the thing the agents and jury were investigating wasn't a crime, so lying about a non crime isn't a crime, etc.

This sort of surmise reflects (all of!) a lack of knowledge about or
misrepresentation of Fitzgerald's and of the grand jury's mandate and
what the Libby indictment actually alleges and what Fitzgerald
explained at his press conference and also more generally about
federal perjury and obstruction-of-justice law while also presuming as
if fact what these bloviators do not know to be a fact (cf., your
"since [sic], etc." above).

It is, in other words, pretty much what one would expect from the
presently too often increasingly degraded and misleading level of
discourse on TV talk shows.
Apparently the defense can . . .

. . . try to . . .
. . . tie the prosecution up in knots by demanding classified information from the CIA about what Valerie Plame was doing. My question is, is this really a defense?

You here self-misleadingly conflate as if one what are actually two
separate groupings of issues -- the "this" to which you actually refer
above (the answer to, What probably are the defenses, substantively,
Libby will attempt if the case goes to trial?) with what may be a
variety of procedural ploys (some of which might be arguably justified
at least in part) to try to delay and maybe even to derail the
prosecution (an, if you will, "lateral" approach to defending a
criminal prosecution).

One of the latter alternatives -- attempting to "tie the prosecution
up in knots by demanding classified information" (although more in the
hope that such material will not be provided than that it will (as of
course Fitzgerald knows and anticipates) -- actually has come to have
something of a shorthand label in terms of defense technique in
"national security" related criminal prosecutions -- namely,
"graymail" (i.e., sum, making putatively credible demands for
"classified" or other material one estimates the government will want
to maintain as secret in the hope that the government will refuse to
provide it and that the judge will in turn encourage a negotiated plea
more favorable to the defendant than might otherwise have been
available [as, e.g., occurred recently perhaps most famously in the
Aldrich Ames prosecution] or perhaps even dismiss all or some of the
charges outright if the judge finds that those materials ought have
been provided under "Brady" and related principles so that their not
being furnished to the defendant at some appropriate time before or
during trial would deny a constitutionally-required fair trial).
Must the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what was being investigated was a crime?

Behavior ("matters") which possibly might be a crime within the grand
jury's and prosecutor's authority to investigate and prosecute (for
perjury and, in part, obstruction of justice) or within the federal
agents' or other federal body's authority to investigate even if not
amounting to a federal crime (for the false statements charge)

For your own self-analytic purposes, you might want to consider
whether how you chose to "frame" this question, i.e., that and how you
pose it in the context of what else you say/ask in your present
posting/query, may be deflecting you from understanding that, on its
own terms (i.e., in light of that very "framing"), the question is
largely moot to the extent that, if you were not presuming,
incorrectly, that there was only one "thing" that was being
investigated (here: a violation only of one federal "covert agent"
identity protection law), and instead had verified what Fitzgerald and
the grand jury and related federal agents actually were investigating
(i.e., whether there were _any_ crimes committed in/by the disclosure
of Plame's identity to the press and public), you would have noted
that (as the Libby indictment itself makes quite clear) "what was
being investigated" included other crimes, too -- e.g., the crimes of
perjury and of obstruction of justice.

Since the Libby indictment itself includes and fairly summarizes the
elements of all the charges therein made, it probably would be less
unhelpful to you to focus on what that document itself alleges in
framing whatever questions you may then have.
If not, can the judge throw out requests for classified information since that information is irrelevant to whether Libby perjured himself?

Some of that information very likely would be relevant to whether
Libby perjured himself or committed the other crimes charged (as
Fitzgerald himself acknowledged in open may be so) because some such
information/documents may be relevant to determining the "materiality"
elements of the crimes charged.

The judge isn't just willy-nilly going to "throw out requests for
classified information" and, instead, will expect the parties
themselves to negotiate about what is/isn't in contention in these
respects then will conduct some sort of (perhaps: partially "in
camera") review to evaluate (or, if you prefer, "weigh" or "balance")
which (if any) of the demands and government objections are needed to
provide defendant a constitutionally and otherwise law-required fair
trial or make rulings that will have the effect or preventing a trial
including if warranted by dismissing some of the charges.

Among the elements that make the Libby indictment arguably interesting
are that Fitzgerald and his colleagues have considered and anticipated
these sorts of issues in the indictment and (as he also made
comparatively clear in his press conference) in deciding what not to
charge.