Posted on 10/28/2005 10:29:03 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
A number of observations tonight from people who know and follow the CIA leak case:
The first is that they view the indictment against Lewis Libby as very strong. One source called it "as clear-cut an indictment" as one would ever see, and the consensus is that Libby is in serious trouble. If Libby lied as much as Fitzgerald accuses him of lying, the sources say, then Libby acted in an astonishingly reckless way.
The observers also suspect that Fitzgerald has some strong but as yet unrevealed evidence to support the centerpiece of his perjury charge against Libby, that is, Libby's testimony to the grand jury about his conversation with NBC's Tim Russert on July 10, 2003, in which Libby swore that it was Russert who told him that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA:
"Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah – yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that."
What is striking about the indictment, observers say, is that Fitzgerald does not say simply that Russert has another recollection. Instead, the indictment says:
In truth and fact, as Libby well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that: a. Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA...
In another place in the indictment, Fitzgerald states flatly that "Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it." That sort of definitiveness has led the observers to suspect that Fitzgerald has some sort of evidence that clearly supports Russert's account of the conversation.
In addition, the observers are unanimously appalled by the performance of Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate. This is something that has been discussed for quite a while now -- at least since Libby's infamous "the aspens will already be turning" letter to Judith Miller. What lawyer, they ask, would have allowed his client to write and send such a letter -- clearly raising suspicions that Libby was trying to influence testimony and possibly obstruct the investigation? Now, Libby is said to be in the market for a good criminal defense lawyer. If he had done that earlier, the observers say, he might not be in the trouble he is in now.
Another consensus opinion is the cautious belief that Karl Rove might not, ultimately, face any charges. Rove is not mentioned by name in the Libby indictment, and only once by a pseudonym -- "Official A." Although the indictment is not about Rove, the observers get the sense that Rove emerges as a far less important player in the whole affair than Libby; it was Libby, for example, and apparently not Rove, who got in touch with the CIA and the State Department about the Wilson matter. In addition, word is that Rove made some sort of presentation to Fitzgerald in the last days of the investigation that made Fitzgerald less inclined to take action against Rove. What that involved is is not clear.
And finally, many observers of the investigation marvel at what is still not known after nearly two years of probing. Who leaked the story to Robert Novak? What, precisely, was Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA at the time Novak's column revealed her identity? Fitzgerald presumably knows the answers to those questions. But, at least so far, he isn't saying.
On its face, of course it looks like Libby is in "real trouble". We have only heard one side, please, ok??
You have made much of his notebooks contradicting his statements. Agree, looks bad...except, WHY would Libby make the notes, keep the notes, not destroy them, not fail to turn them over, yet turn around and tell the GJ something the notes contradicted? HUH??? I want an explanation for that inexplicability and I'm hoping to get one that helps enlighten me to this whole case.
As for his notebooks supporting Russert, only if Libby's notes were complete, leaving nothing out, about a conversation with Russert, and the notes proved that Russert mentioned nothing to Libby about Plame. A tall order.
I do agree that his notes apparently showed that he discussed Plame with Cheney, earlier than the Russert conversation. Which he failed to tell the GJ, apparently, or the investigators who first questioned him.
Again, WHY would he SAY something different from his own notes that he turned over? You, yourself, also point out that he was far too chatty and should have given the most minimal of answers, and may I add, Libby is a high-powered attorney in his own right.
Once again, I'm waiting for an explanation, because none of this makes any sense.
Please read this again.....I think this is the nub of the situation.....
In point b., he accuses Libby of lying in the statement above because Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Funny, though, Libby didn't say in that testimony that he didn't know that Plame worked for the CIA. Libby testified that ******he told Russert***** that he didn't know. Is lying to a reporter a crime?
IOW, Libby was LYING TO RUSSERT in their conversation about Plame.
Yep, the WH has been trying to find who thier "leaker" has been for a long time. Fitzgerald just did thier work for them, and the Dems think They have a victory- LOL.
This is a win-win for the WH. They have a problem taken care of and now the press is in a huge quandry. If Cooper, Russert, Miller - et al clam up then Libby prosecution falls apart and the Dems are denied a "Senior WH Official" conviction to hang on thier wall. If they roll on Libby, the media will lose every "Confidential Source" in Government because they will all be too scared that the press will ultimately roll over on them too.
As an added bonus, if this does go to trial, Libby's defense will expose everything Wilson, Plame, and the CIA have been involved in and it is quite concievable that the entire anti-war house of cards could come tumbling down.
Once again the WH has out-pokered the Media and the DUmmies, the the idiot Libs did thier work for them.
I don't think I ever said Novak would be "liable," only that he could step forward and clear Libby in a heartbeat if he wanted.
I did watch the press conference, and I agree that he was careful to not assert "covert status" asa ammter of fact. But he did say that Plame's status within the CIA was classified, etc. (using similar language as what appers in the indictment), which IMO, will raise in the mind of the casual listener an inference that Plame was covert.
He went on in the press conference to express -generally- how important protection of intelligence is to national security. That rhetoric would tend to reinforce, agin to the casual listener, that an illegal leak occurred - even though he takes pains later on to say that the allegation of an illegal leak is not in the four corners of this indictment.
He's innocent until proven guilty. But in a court of law, notebooks and recordings seem to pack much more of a wallop than conflicting testimony by witnesses.
"Fitzy said specifically it was LL's own notes." ~ LS
New York Post
IS THAT ALL THERE IS?
John Podhoretz
October 29, 2005 -- SO, after 28 months, what we are told is this: Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, lied about his conversations with two reporters.
He lied about those conversations first to FBI investigators in the fall of 2003 and then to a grand jury in the spring of 2004.
And in telling those lies, says independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby sought to impede the investigation into the public exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
That's all, folks.
The grand jury in the most hotly watched Washington political-legal investigation since Whitewater concluded its business yesterday by returning charges against one man and one man alone who, the grand jury alleges, didn't tell the truth about when and how he discovered a piece of classified information.
Scooter Libby was not charged with the misuse of that information, or with the unlawful exposure of an undercover agent, or with involvement in a conspiracy to reveal her identity.
He is, it is worth repeating, charged only with lying about his knowledge of it.
Here's how it breaks down.
Libby testified that he first heard about Valerie Wilson's identity in a phone call from NBC's Tim Russert when, the indictment flatly alleges, he never discussed her with Russert. In any case, according to the indictment, Libby had learned Wilson's identity at least a month earlier.
That's the basis of two of the five charges.
The indictment further charges Libby with making a false statement and committing perjury in his account of another phone call from another reporter.
What's strange about these two counts is that they derive from testimony in which Libby actually acknowledged having answered a question (from Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper) about Valerie Wilson's CIA status. The indictment says that Libby told investigators and the grand jury that he had answered Cooper's question by saying that he "had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."
The indictment alleges Libby lied because in fact he had told Cooper "without qualification, that [he] had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."
Those two words "without qualification" appear to be the the entire basis for two more counts.
I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a very slender reed to me, especially since only two people were involved in that phone call.
Cooper and Libby might have conflicting memories; Cooper's notes might be incomplete. Who knows?
The final count obstruction of justice is essentially an explanation for the otherwise inscrutable lies Libby is alleged to have told.
He told those supposed lies, Fitzgerald said in his press conference, because he wanted to "throw sand" in the eyes of investigators and "block their view." Block their view of what, exactly?
This whole business got started because Valerie Wilson/Plame's name was revealed to Robert Novak by one government source, then confirmed by a second (called "Official A" in the indictment, but almost certainly White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove). Novak published it on July 14, 2003.
There's nothing in the indictment about this event. Novak's name appears only twice in the 22-page document.
The grand jury issued no charges whatever relating to the revelation of Plame's name even though the indictment makes a point of saying that Libby discussed how "Wilson's wife might have worked at the CIA" with Judith Miller of The New York Times fully three weeks before Novak did his column.
These are serious charges, and I am heartsick to see them made against Scooter Libby, who has been a friend of mine for two decades.
I hope against hope that the case as set forward in the indictment is wrong, that he can clear his name. But there's little question that the breathless hopes of Bush critics for the past few weeks their desperate belief that Fitzgerald would reveal an executive-branch conspiracy to discredit administration critic Joseph Wilson that led officials to commit a despicable crime have been dashed.
Now, if they want to continue to hope because Fitzgerald said he was keeping his investigation open, they should, by all means, do so.
But Fitzgerald basically said he didn't expect any further action. "Very rarely do you bring a [new] charge in a case that's going to be tried," he said. "I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded."
If Fitzgerald is as straight a shooter as everybody says, the anti-Bush Left is going to have to come up with a new fantasy for America's deliverance from the machinations of Karl Rove.
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
My only question is that IF the prosecutor supposedly found these (numerous) inconsistencies, why didn't the guy just say "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." Usually---not always---but usually when someone tells you too much, they are trying to develop a story. (The flip side is true: if Clinton said "I don't recall" 249 times, then it's pretty obvious he DOES recall).
"IOW, Libby was LYING TO RUSSERT in their conversation about Plame."
You're missing the point. Libby is not being indicted for lying to a reporter. He's being indicted for lying to a grand jury and giving false statements to the FBI. Russert says the conversation with Libby never took place so obviously someone is lying. What the Feds are saying is that because what Libby claims he told Russert is demonstrably false, then that's an indication that it's Libby who is lying and Russert who is telling the truth.
And that was precisely, I think, why Fitzy repeatedly used the term "classified," because you can be on a "classified" assignment or have a "classified" job that is not "covert" (i.e., undercover). Again, the example is a Navy Captain assigned a "classified" mission of delivering documents to a foreign navy secretary. He is not "covert." He is still Captain Smith. But his mission is "classified," or secret. It is entirely possible that Plame may no longer (if ever) have been "covert" and yet working on a classified mission or in a classified job description that Libby or others were not free to reveal.
I agree, the why is very important. On the surface, he looks like he is incredibly stupid (which I doubt) or incredibly arrogant (which his friends say he is not). Otherwise, why not just simply say, "I don't recall if we talked about x, y, z on that day or not. Whatever my notes say is probably what happened, but I don't recall." Then you cannot be prosecuted for perjury, because no one can prove intent.
Excuse me, but isn't Libby an attorney? Should he not know some of these things? Perhaps it is a good thing he is no longer in the VP's office.
OK, so Russert is saying that the entire conversion about Plame never happened, that Libby just made it up. The question becomes WHY would Libby, a lawyer, testify to such a thing?
Russert, Cooper et al will make lousy witnesses.
It looks like Fitzgerald has been "had" by the MSM. What bigger fabricators than Russert, Blintzer, Stepinitoplis, Dan "what's the frequency Kenneth" Rather, etc., etc.
Thank you. I was struck by one thing in particular that rolled of Fitz's lips yesterday...how this was a 'national security issue'. I have a feeling and a hope that this is the 'lil hole in Wilsons' boat that might just lead to the sinking of the Titanic which would explain to me why Russert looked nervous yesterday.
"OK, so Russert is saying that the entire conversion about Plame never happened, that Libby just made it up. The question becomes WHY would Libby, a lawyer, testify to such a thing?"
I have the same question. Since no crime was committed in discussing Plame with reporters, I don't know what motivation Libby would have to lie. It doesn't make sense which is why I'm looking forward to the defense's version of events.
P.S.: I didn't mean to imply earlier that I believed the Feds' indictments against Libby are true. That's why I used the word "alleged". I was only stating the reasons why Libby's statements about what he told Russert can be used as evidence in court to help prove that it's Libby who is lying and Russert who is telling the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.