Fitzgerald is an incredibly poor liar, or poker player, or whatever. He spends all his energy trying to avoid turning over evidence he claims doesn’t exist!

However, as demonstrated below, neither Marshall nor any other case relied upon by the defendant supports the position that Rule 16 requires the government to produce documents on the ground that they relate to potential defense witnesses.

More fundamentally, the government has not withheld documents material to the preparation of the defense on the basis that the documents relate to individuals who may called as witnesses by the defense, rather than the government. For these reasons, the defendant’s Third Motion to Compel should be denied.

To paraphrase, the case law doesn’t apply, but if it did we don’t have the documents defense requests. Then why move to deny the motion if you are in compliance? What a moron. So, does Fitztgerald tip his hand to this apparent conundrum? You bet he does. First the defense witnesses in question:

The defendant has identified as potential defense witnesses Richard Armitage, Stephen Hadley, Bill Harlow, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Wilson and seeks documents from “the files of these witnesses – and others – that relate to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger” on the ground that they may aid in preparing to examine these witnesses.

I guess the prosecutor could be feigning confusion, but the request is about Wilson’s trip and anything about his wife’s role. Somehow Fitz forgot about Valerie – again. Seems he is always of target, wandering someplace else other than his original charge.  Anyway, Fitzgerald exposes his utter incompetence and the fact he had a pre-ordained target in mind and ignored all other possible aspects of this investigation:

The government has produced to defendant all documents received from the Office of the Vice President relating to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, and all documents received from any source relating to conversations, correspondence, or meetings in which defendant was involved, or which relate to the defendant’s inquiries regarding former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger.

Too cute by half.  Fitzgerald is not providing any information from State (Powell, Armitage or Grossman), the CIA (Plame and Harlow) or the White House (Hadley and Rove).  And he is not providing anything these folks had regarding Wilson and Plame.  Only those things that involved Wilson, Plame and Libby.  If Fitzgerald did not investigate what was going on, but simply went right after Rove and Libby then he will deserve a serious reprimand, possibly more.  The judge has got to be getting tired of these half truths.

Fitzgerald admits there are such documents where people discussed Wilson and Plame – but he ain’t coughing them up.

Moreover, the government has gone beyond its obligations under Rule 16 to produce some additional materials from the OVP, CIA and the State Department that relate generally to Mr. Wilson’s trip. Id.; 5/5/06 Tr. 49. With respect to documents relating to Mr. Wilson’s trip, the government has declined to produce only documents that were created during the investigation and are protected from discovery pursuant to the Jencks Act, and documents which relate solely to individuals other than the defendant, including innocent accused, and have no connection with or relevance to the defendant.

“Some” materials.  Not all.  Just the ones he felt comfortable releasing.  The other information is being withheld because, while it includes Plame and Wilson, it doesn’t include Libby.  Well, that is going cause a lot of appellate fireworks, because anyone discussing Plame is someone who Libby could say was a source to reporters and support his claim he was hearing about her from the media.

Ftizgerald is just another slimy lawyer who doesn’t feel obligated to present ALL the evidence in order to determine the TRUTH regarding guilt and innocence.  Judge Walton better be careful.  Fitzgerald is on the verge of staining him and his views of justice the way things are going.  No one should have exculpatory evidence with held from their trial.