Some people might call it a defence strategy but in my book it goes down as Wiggling and Squiggling

In October, 2005 Vice-president Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was indicted with perjury and obstructing justice for allegedly making false statements under oath about how and when he learned of Plame's CIA employment, and when he told reporters.

For a reminder in 2003 former US Ambassador Joe Wilson openly criticised Bush for misleading the country into the Iraq war. Shortly afterwards Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was outed by the press as being a covert CIA agent. Someone within the Bush administration had leaked that information to the press and the general assumption is that it happened to get back at Joe Wilson and discredit him.

The approved investigation into the leak lead to Libby who claims to have learned about Plame’s identity from a Reporter called Tim Russert from NBC News and only then had passed it on to Judith Miller from the Times and Mathew Cooper from Time Magazine.

But Russert confuted that allegation and Miller and Cooper testified that Libby told them about Plame's CIA role but never mentioned learning the information from a reporter thus events leading to Mr. Fitzgerald’s charges.

Libby has pleaded not guilty and since then has tried to throw the case of track with rather morbid methods that so far have done nothing to improve his position. In the opposite, the actions taken by his defence team could be interpreted as clear signs of despair.

For more background information please visit: www.truthout.orgor for a timeline www.cnn.com

Here’s a list of strategies, methods and diversions utilized by Mr. Libby’s defence team, all of which I would put down as wiggling and squiggling.

Only last week on March 12, 2006; the Chicago Tribune published an article claiming that anyone with a computer and a network access could find out names of CIA agents and expose their identities. Libby’s lawyers sprung into action immediately questioning whether Plame’s CIA employment really was a secret when published and asked a federal judge to provide documentation that bear on the issue.

The Tribune claims to have found more than 2600 CIA employees, 50 internal phone numbers and several locations of CIA facilities. Fair enough the internet is sometimes scarily open and presents a disturbing equilibrium of being use- or harmful. However I do not believe that one can find such information by conducting a “blind” search. Some sort of reference is needed to start, real or a cover name for example! The whole thing is a bit like a clew coming undone; it has to start from a loose threat.

As another blogger put it, “Valerie Plame was safe until the White House pointed reporters in her direction.” And if anything else; leaking the identity of Valerie Plame in the first place has been the reason for the security mess the Chicago Tribune has caused and not vice versa.
A wise man once said that the best thing about memory is that we can choose to forget what aggravates us.

On February 28, 2006 it became known to the press, that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby had hired a renowned memory loss expert by the name of Daniel L. Schacter, a Harvard psychology professor.
Schacter has written several books on Memory and its vulnerability, he says that it is easy to “unwittingly create mistaken – though strong held – beliefs about the past.”

As there seems to be no other possible defence strategy (ups I mean wiggling and squiggling) it is likely we’ll be hearing a lot about Libby not being liable for lying. As his lawyers put it: “…any misstatements he made during his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony were not intentional, but rather the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory”.

Now the next possible wiggling could be, bringing in a shrink to “Analyze That” memory loss goes hand in hand with temporary insanity, which I would then label as the “Just a mad man in a mad man’s administration” strategy.

The so far probably dirtiest move by Libby and Co. could be seen as an attack on Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s legal authority. On February 24, 2006 Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby argued that Mr. Fitzgerald was improperly appointed by the Justice Department instead of the president to investigate the CIA leak.

Experts said the Libby defence claim is similar to a challenge the Supreme Court rejected in 1988, in the Morrison v. Olson case. The Justice Department sought to quash subpoenas of its officials by an independent counsel. They argued that the law that allowed the appointment of independent counsels violated the president's authority under the Constitution and gave such independent investigators inappropriately broad powers.

The regulations written by the Justice Department to allow for the appointment of a special counsel such as Mr. Fitzgerald were adopted after the 1992 expiration of a separate law that authorized a judicial panel to appoint independent counsels.

Though the independent counsel worked outside the executive branch, the special counsel regulations were written to work within the executive branch, legal experts said, and the attorney general has authority to deputize someone to prosecute the nation's laws. To use the words of Scott Fredericksen, an associate independent counsel during the Reagan administration "I think it's a nice try, but I don't give it much chance of success".

February 03, 2006, the “Greymail” strategy does not refer to faded paper but rather a defence tactic of claiming, that classified records are necessary to the defence. The goal of the defence team is to request so many classified documents that the federal government eventually refuses to turn them over. At that point, the defence tries to convince a judge that they cannot get a fair trial without these records; the goal is to have the case or charges dismissed.

Libby’s lawyers vehemently oppose accusations of trying to scuttle the prosecution with their demands that the government turn over classified material to the defence.

But it seems a rather strange coincident that one of Libby’s counsels Mr. Cline has a history of successfully using the "greymail” strategy; including the fact, that the defence requested 277 Presidential Daily Brief’s, which is unheard of, frankly because they are outside the bounds of materiality.

Libby’s attorneys later declared: "Denying Mr. Libby's requests because they pertain to 'extraordinarily sensitive' documents would have the effect of penalizing Mr. Libby for serving in a position that required him to address urgent national security matters every day"

And if that’s not what is called a greymail strategy I think the term needs to be redefined. Luckily, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald apprehended the move and Libby’s strategy didn’t pay off.

On March 10, 2006 Judge Walton ruled that Libby was entitled to see those documents but that the CIA can either delete highly classified portions from the briefing material or provide a "table of contents.

On February, 2006 the media reported of a letter send by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald saying it is his understanding that Libby testified he was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors."

A legal source involved in the case told CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration -- including Cheney -- authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Six days later Cheney verified in an interview that he does have the power to declassify information but refused to give any statements to the alleged assumption of Libby’s testimony.

Question: Have you done it?
Cheney: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order –

Now this could have been nothing more than a misunderstanding but Cheney’s verification that he is authorized to declassify documents came paired with a eulogy to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The commotion about it died quickly to make room for the next Hurray. Any opinions, founded knowledge or hypothetical theories on the matter are welcome.

On January 21, 2006 Libby’s attorneys made it known that they plan to subpoena several journalists and news organizations to obtain their notes and other information they consider useful in defending their client from perjury charges.

Libby’s attorneys hinted, that it was part of their defence strategy to independently investigate journalists involved in the case trying to raise doubts about the accuracy of the reporters' memories and methods.

On February 27, 2006 Judge Walton allowed both sides to subpoena journalists and news organizations.
The New York Times reported yesterday, March 16, 2006 that they had received a subpoena for Judith Miller and a all documents, notes and drafts concerning the Valerie Wilson’s identity disclosure.

Libby’s lawyer refused to comment on the extent but Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert have verified that they too had received subpoenas. Millers attorney already said it was likely she would fight the subpoena. Ms. Miller had already spend 85 days in jail before consenting to testify before the grand jury about her interview with Libby.

As she and others already testified against Libby it’s hard to see how this move could improve Scooter’s position. But as we don’t know yet what Libby and Co are up to I guess we just have to keep the popcorn ready and put our trust in special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.