He had no knowledge that Wilson's job status was classified. He did not push reporters to write about Valerie Wilson. He did not leak to Robert Novak. Richard Armitage did. He is an innocent person. He had no motive to lie.
Let's go to Fitzgerald's closing (from the transcript, not available online.)
You know what else? One thing that's really important is what Mr. Schmall told him. Craig Schmall told him after the Novak column, after he read it, this is a big deal. He focuses on Valerie Wilson. Schmall says it's bigger than that. Every intelligence service that thinks she was overseas will figure out who was in contact with her and, whether innocent or not, they will look at them. They could arrest them. They could torture them. They could kill them.
....When you do something that's brought to your attention later that you're discussing something with people that could lead to people being killed, that better be important.
The defense asked to approach the bench to object. After a bench conference, Fitzgerald continued:
Just so we're perfectly clear, I'm talking about Mr. Libby's state of mind. And Mr. Libby's state of mind wants you to believe that the wife was unimportant....The evidence is Schmall did not know anything about Valerie Plame in particular. But he told the Vice President and the defendant, he said, this is not good. If someone is outed, people can get in trouble overseas. They can get arrested, tortured or killed.
....For a state of mind, not whether it's true or false, but you're the defendant, you're reading Walter Pincus, write an article about a front company being exposed and other people being endangered. Don't you think that imprints?
....There is no memory problem. This was something important. Something he was focused on. Something he was angry about. He remembers a conversation that did not happen and he remembers the conversation that somebody else had with a reporter, but forget all of his conveniently in a way that wipes the slate clean and takes him out of the realm of classified information.
Rather than arguing Fitzgerald is wrong, Novak writes:
In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.
I don't think the issue is why Fitzgerald didn't move against Armitage. Armitage came forward early on and disclosed his role. The issue is whether Libby lied. The motive for Libby to lie, according to Fitzgerald, was that he had been afraid he had disclosed classified information...that's very different than saying he had disclosed classified information.
As to the importance of Libby's lies, Fitzgerald makes in perfectly clear in his closing, and it is for this reason that so many of us are obsessed with the case:
You know, there is talk about a cloud over the Vice President. There is a cloud over the White House as to what happened. Don't you think the FBI, the Grand Jury, the American people are entitled to a straight answer?
The critic of the war comes out, he points fingers at the White House, fairly or unfairly. It's not like that editorial he marked. He is fair game. Anything goes. That result is his wife had a job with the CIA. She worked in the counter proliferation division, that was stipulated. She gets dragged into the newspapers. Some may think that's okay. That's not.
If people want to find out was the law broken, were the laws broken about the disclosure of classified information? Did somebody do it intentionally or otherwise?
People want to know who did it. What role did they play? What role did the defendant play? What role did others play? What role did the Vice President play because he told you early on, he may have discussed sharing this information with the press, with the Vice President, but of course only after the Novak column.
Don't you think the FBI and the Grand Jury are not mad to want straight answers? They deserved straight answers. This defendant was focused on it. It was unique circumstances. It was important. He was angry at Wilson and knew those answers. I submit to you, when you go in that jury room, your common sense will tell you that he made a gamble. He said I'm going to tell them the story about the rumors. Hope it goes away. He lied.
He threw sand in the eyes of the Grand Jury and the FBI investigators. He obstructed justice. He stole the truth from the judicial system. When you return to that jury room, you deliberate, your verdict can give truth back. Please do.
When Fitz finished, there was another bench conference, after which the Judge said:
I am going to give you another cautionary instruction I ask that you comply with. The truth of whether someone could be harmed, based upon a disclosure of information about people working in a covert capacity, is not what is at issue in this case. And you must therefore not let that matter impact your deliberations.
Remember, what I have told you several times. Mr. Libby is not charged with leaking classified information or information about anyone's covert status. What is relevant here is what, if any, impact things Mr. Libby read or was told had on his state of mind. In other words, whether it
provided a motive for Mr. Libby not to tell the truth when he spoke to the FBI agents and when he testified before the Grand Jury. Please keep that instruction in mind when you deliberate in this case.
At Wells' urging, the Judge agreed to submit the cautionary instruction to the jury in writing.
I think the likelihood that the Judge would grant a new trial based on Fitzgerald's statements is nil. Nor will it result in a reversal on appeal.
