Posted on 11/17/2005 2:49:48 AM PST by The Raven
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, ...
--snip
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. ...
--snip Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
>>>I love Rush and Laura Ingraham, and I don't understand how they can fall all over themselves gushing about Russert.<<<
Hannity does the same thing. It infuriates me that they do not unload on Russert every Monday. Russert always provides plenty of liberal bias to expose and discuss.
Doesn't the "corrupt endeavor" also impose an obligation to show that Libby had a reason to muddy the waters for the prosecutor? Isn't that reason to avoid mentioning the source was actually an administrative source? Once that is gone, does Libby have any motive to engage in a corrupt endeavor to mislead?
In addition, he will easily impeach the string of reporters he will call, who will say "I was confused", "I don't know," "I don't recall", "I'm not sure." IOW, even more doubt and confusion.
If Fitzgerald doesn't realize that he is holding a losing hand here, he's much dumber than I think he is.
"That's a variation on "there was no outing, therefore there can be no false testimony or statement" objection to the indictment."
You seem immune to the concept that people are usually not charged with perjury if their alleged misrepresentations are not material to an underlying crime.
Previously it has been well argued that there is no crime, since there was no outing. (Even you seem to agree with this.)
And now we find that even if there was a crime, Libby's testimony was not key to it, since he was not the first leaker.
You seem to be making a career out of defending this indictment. You are on every thread on the subject 24/7 insisting that it is a legitimate indictment.
How many other people have been indicted for perjury under similar circumstances? Let's have some citations.
This is selective prosecution under a technicality. A "process crime." It smacks of a vindicativeness since Fitzgerald wasn't able to find what he wanted to find.
There is the law and there is the spirit of the law. This indictment violates the spirit of the law in several ways.
I believe it is more of a crime to criminalize political differences than anything Libby is accused of.
I thought Libby learned Valerie Plames name from some assistant secretary at the State Department, isn't that what Fitzgerald said when he announced Libby's indictments?
The lie in this case is the difference between what Libby had in his head, and what Libby said he had in his head.
The lie is not "the facts in this case" as to which reporter heard it first, etc. Those points are mere context to illuminate what Libby said he had in his head. The evidence about Libby contacting the CIA is to illuminate what Libby actually had in his head.
Just like the republicans visited Nixon, the democrats will be crossing the street for their vist to Fitz.
I expect a few more outings will be forthcoming with more information in the next several weeks followed by a motion to dismiss.
The debate questions will then be should Cheney bring Scooter back.
Want to see Russert taking the fifth!
Whether you want to believe it or not, my object is to correct errors in fact asserted by some posters.
I'll remeber not to do that for you.
Mr. Russert, on such and so day, you testified as follows [recite testimony]. Was that testimony true, to the best of your knowledge? Has anything happened between then and now that would cause you to change the testimony you gave then?
>>>The more I hear about this, the more I am convinced that Joe Wilson and his wife were just not as important as Joe Wilson would like everyone to believe. Hearing the fact that his wife worked at the CIA and may have had a role in sending him to Niger was just not a significant event to everyone, and they truly just don't remember from who, or when they found out about it.<<<
That may be true of members of the administration; but the press has been part of a conspiracy against the president from the beginning. Everyone knew that Joe Wilson was lying -- that he is a pathological liar. But the media and the DNC treated his lies as the gospel truth solely to harm the Bush presidency. I am in agreement with others that the media feels it is close to being exposed (via the Libby trial), and it is running scared, trying to put this to rest as quickly as possible.
Woodward seems to be the point man. He was on Charley Rose several weeks ago, and he was the obvious oddball of a liberal discussion panel -- the only one who was defending Libby -- arguing that Valerie Plame was not covert, in a legal sense.
Woodward did the same thing on Larry King Live right before the indictments were handed down. I was shocked.
Unless you have a video link established to determine who is receiving the fax how can you be sure who is reading the information?
Faxing classified documents IMO raises some security issues.
The indictment reads as though Libby was trying to avoid being fingered as a source for leaking, ESPECIALLY if his source is an administration source.
How do you make that motive disappear?
Your whole argument seems to be based on perceptions of perceptions of perceptions.
We cannot prove or disprove what a person has in their head. We can only prove or disprove what they present to the world. We know that the facts presented by Fitzgerald are incorrect, just as some of the recollections presented by Libby may indeed be incorrect.
Fitzgerald's problem is that he must factually prove his already flawed charges against Libby. He must do more than just prove Libby was inaccurate, he must prove that Libby was intentionally inaccurate, and that involves proving what Libby had in his head, which is fairly unprovable.
As a witness, Libby needn't be accurate in his testimony, so long as he wasn't intentionally inaccurate. As a prosecutor, however, Fitzgerald must be accurate in his reconstruction of events. He wasn't.
Libby doesn't have to be "at the beginning of the phone calls" for the indictment to stand.
I think Fitz was foolish to embellish the "outing" angle, and flowing from that, to insinuate (without charging) Libby as the first or original or only source. Neither contention is necessary to support the indictment as written.
Fitzgerald's problem is that he's screwed and the lights are full on him.
"My whole argument" is nothing more than rephrasing Fit's indictment for the reading and comprehension impaired.
In the face of that, the jury, a group of normal men and women (not lawyers who are going to slice and dice the meaning of the word "is") are going to say "I don't see any attempt to mislead here".
When Libby's lawyers get up and ask the FBI why they waited until almost the end of the 2 year term to ask neighbors what they knew about Plame's employment, the FBI is going to look like a bunch of amatures. When the jury is faced with the fact that many in Washington knew about Plame's employment, the only person who is going to look like he was misleading the Grand Jury is going to be Fitz.
Now, you can get as technical as you want, but the simple fact of this matter is, when this gets to court, the only losers in this whole thing are going to be the media and Fitzgerald. Oh yeah, and throw in the democrats too because the public is not going to like this one bit.
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.