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 ...
This part of the indictment seems disengenuous because even though Libby stated that he 'heard it from reporters', Fitz is claiming otherwise, without actually identifying, in the indictment, who Libby actually heard it from.
"[33] b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;"
The last part is very telling because it states that 'Libby had HEARD that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;"
It seems that Fitz is assuming here, without any basis in fact.
Whether it was confirmed to Cooper 'without qualifications' doesn't make any difference.
Rephrase it as many times as you want, in as many ways as you want, but it won't make Fitzgerald's reconstruction of events any less false. Ironic isn't it, that Fitzgerald has charged Libby with 5 felony counts for doing the same thing that he has done himself?
Why would Russert lie? Because Vanity Fair via his wife made him do it. Don't forget that Vanity Fair revealed Deep Throat in an exclusive on May 31, 2005. That connects Vanity Fair with Woodward....without a doubt.
I think we will find others who knew.
I can't wait.
1. The Watergate is in DC.
2. Joe retired from Political Life in 1998.
3. Joe was sent to Niger in 1999 with Valerie as the "go between" between the administration and CIA.
This has to lead back to Bubba and Hillary. Bubba and Hillary trusted no one but "their own kind".
It's gotta be Bubba and Hillary who "initiated" this attempted takedown of Rove. Don't forget: If you don't perform, your plane could crash (Brown) or you could wind up in Marcy Park (Foster) or they can pull your files.
That is the only object of the indictment.
Although I agree that it is a good defense strategy to turn this into a leak or "outing the agent" case, it is not a leak or "outing the agent" case. That allegation is not made in the charges.
That allegation may not be in the charges but it sure was front and center in this cheap little SP hack's press conference wherein he attempted to convince the public and potential jurors that Libby did indeed out a super secret covert agent (snortle)--and that that is why it's important to get Libby.
This attempt to convict Libby totally out of court and totally without evidence and even without the ability to actually CHARGE him on this issue demonstrates the complete non-credibility of this SP himself and opens his whole "investigation" to doubt.
He had previously obtained yellow cake from Africa. In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger, Wilson, he -- and Director Tenet's statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA. Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales.
What did the President say in the State of the Union? He said: according to British reports, Iraq is seeking uranium from Africa. And the intelligence cited two other countries, in addition to Niger.
So, again, the larger truth, was Saddam Hussein a threat, in part because he was seeking nuclear weapons, in addition to what we know and have said about chemical and biological.
Now, if you ask, how is the President approaching this, what's the President's approach, the President sees this as much ado, that it's beside the point of the central threat that Saddam Hussein presented.
Q But doesn't that make it all the more important that some accountability be achieved that this flap over one fact can obscure his larger message?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's larger message has not been obscured. The American people continue to agree that Saddam Hussein was a threat and --
Q You just said it was being obscured. You said there's a larger truth here that's being missed.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, but the larger truth -- the larger truth being missed this week, but it's not been missed by the country on a longer-term basis.
Q So this is just another press problem? The President has often thought we go overboard. Is that the case here? Is the larger truth being obscured just by the media?
Press Briefing
Ari Fleischer
July 12,2003
I'll bet he did, but Fitz didn't believe him.
Fitz effectively indicted Libby for lying to reporters, not to him. Fitz either isn't smart enough to know the difference, or doesn't seem to care.
I don't think he's confused. I think what happened was two fold:
1. Russert is lying. Everything Libby said about Russert was true, but Russert denied it.
2. Fitz is confused about what Libby said. Libby was trying to get across the idea to Fitz that Libby was being intentionally vague to reporters, and Fitz took what Libby said he told reporters as what Libby was stating as fact. In other words, if Libby testified that he told Russert (or whoever) he didn't know who Joe Wilson's wife was, he is testifying that he was lying to Russert to keep him off the trail. Fitz took the part about Libby saying he didn't know who Joe Wilson's wife was and charged him with perjury.
What did you have for lunch two years ago on November 17th?
What specifically are the alleged lies that Libby told to the investigators?
A reuben.
Text of Indictment in HTML <- The prosecutor's charges are here
I'm responding to your point, "Libby's indictment has nothing to do with lying to reporters." I would like YOU to outline the specific lies, as I'm not sure I agree with you.
I've read the indictment. I'm convinced Fitz is either confused or intent on prosecuting an indictment with or without evidence.
I'm sure you disagree with me, else you wouldn't post.
Naturally, I have to concede that the indicment is phrased in the context of Libby's discussions with Russert, Cooper and Miller, so it can't be literally true that teh indictment has "nothing" to do with conversations with reporters.
But the gravamen of the indictment is that Libby lied to investigators. Whether he lied to reporters, or told the truth to reporters is in itself, irrelvant. If he lied to reporters, and he tells the investigators that he lied to reporters (repeating the same lie), no false statement to investigators, and no grounds for indictment.
I've read the indictment. I'm convinced Fitz is either confused or intent on prosecuting an indictment with or without evidence.
Like I said, you disagree with my take on the indictment.
Cooper's response on MTP after testifying before the GJ?
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
Miller claims no knowledge of whether Libby told her or not. It all boils down to the discrepancy between Russert's and Libby's version of their conversation.
I disagree, but you've worn me out. Have it your way.
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.