There's no courtroom proceedings today, but there's been new filings in the case. Jeralyn at Talk Left reports that Fitz has filed a new motion, in response to the claim made in Team Libby's opening statement that Libby had no reason to lie. The SF-312 non-disclosure agreements. Jeralyn quotes Fitz's allegation: The government intends to prove that, at the time he made the charged false statements, defendant was aware that, if Ms. Wilson’s employment status was in fact classified, or that Ms. Wilson was in fact a covert CIA officer, in addition to potential criminal prosecution under a number of statutes, defendant faced the possible loss of his security clearances, removal from office, and termination from employment as a result of his disclosures to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
(…)
As part of its proof on this issue, the government seeks to introduce in evidence at trial five non-disclosure agreements executed by defendant during the course of his employment as the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor, and as the President’s National Security Advisor. See GX5A-GX5F, copies of which have been provided to the Court and defense counsel.
These agreements are signed instruments having independent legal significance, and thus are nonhearsay, and also are admissible as admissions of a party-opponent. Because these agreements are probative of defendant’s state of mind at the time of the charged offenses, they should be admitted. Jeralyn's inner defense attorney isn't convinced the mere existence of the non-disclosure documents is sufficient, and expresses a preference to see some direct link to their substance being in Libby's mind at the time he made his false statements.
Christy at firedoglake reviews the SF-312 form, and its purpose, in some detail. Christy's inner prosecutor was calling attention to the SF-312s back in November of 2005, and she provides a wealth of insight into their significance.
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
