| | It was also noted that the overwhelming evidence from the FBI and grand jury investigations and the trial proceedings shows that neither Libby nor the numerous other government official who discussed Ms. Wilson's employment believed she was covert, or that her employment status was classified. As a result, none of the five witness who testified that Libby discussed Plame with them suggested that they felt that they were having a conversation about a covert or classified employee, a point affirmed in an August 2004 government affidavit and the government's Guidelines Memorandum ("the information to which defendant was given access did not expressly identify Ms. Wilson as a covert agent.") | | It was also noted that the overwhelming evidence from the FBI and grand jury investigations and the trial proceedings shows that neither Libby nor the numerous other government official who discussed Ms. Wilson's employment believed she was covert, or that her employment status was classified. As a result, none of the five witness who testified that Libby discussed Plame with them suggested that they felt that they were having a conversation about a covert or classified employee, a point affirmed in an August 2004 government affidavit and the government's Guidelines Memorandum ("the information to which defendant was given access did not expressly identify Ms. Wilson as a covert agent.") |
| − | With respect to the sentencing stage, Libby's lawyers complained about the behavior of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In October 2005, Fitzgerald said (in a press conference) that he would not speak to "whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." Early in discovery, Libby's lawyers sought documents which addressed the topic and the government refused to provide the information because it was "irrelevant." The government argued Wilson's status was "not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged." In June 2006, the court issued a discovery order which, again, emphasized that Wilson's employment was "immaterial to the preparation of the defense." In preliminary instructions to the jury, the judge said her "actual status" was "totally irrelevant" to any "assessment" of the Libby's guilty or innocence. After the trial, however, in its sentencing memo, the government adopted a "new position" - that Wilson was a "covert agent" and that Libby should be sentenced as though that fact were established at trial. | + | With respect to the sentencing stage, Libby's lawyers complained about the behavior of prosecutor [[Patrick Fitzgerald]]. In October 2005, Fitzgerald said (in a press conference) that he would not speak to "whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." Early in discovery, Libby's lawyers sought documents which addressed the topic and the government refused to provide the information because it was "irrelevant." The government argued Wilson's status was "not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged." In June 2006, the court issued a discovery order which, again, emphasized that Wilson's employment was "immaterial to the preparation of the defense." In preliminary instructions to the jury, the judge said her "actual status" was "totally irrelevant" to any "assessment" of the Libby's guilty or innocence. After the trial, however, in its sentencing memo, the government adopted a "new position" - that Wilson was a "covert agent" and that Libby should be sentenced as though that fact were established at trial. |