Withdraw the Libby indictment {Wash Times Ed.)

Washington Times ^ | Nov 17, 2005 | editorial

[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.

[kabar]

A reuben.

Would you be willing to testify under oath to that effect? Tim Russert recalls seeing you in a local diner on that date at noon ordering a pastrami on rye, no mayo.

[Cboldt]

Tim Russert recalls seeing you in a local diner on that date at noon ordering a pastrami on rye, no mayo.

Sue me.

[1L]

>> Whether he lied to reporters, or told the truth to reporters is in itself, irrelvant.<<

I understand that, but the prosecutor doesn't seem to. No, I don't think Fitz is stupid enough to say, "Libby lied to Cooper, so let's indict him." What the problem is, as stated, is that Fitz doesn't understand what Libby was saying -- i.e. that he was in effect lying to reporters, and one of the statements Libby made to investigators was untruthful but it was meant to be untruthful -- to demonstrate to the investigators that he was, in fact, lying to reporters. Yet, the investigators took the statement at face value.

In other words, if I told my wife I was at a lodge meeting last night and that wasn't true, but told investigators, "I was at a lodge meeting" in reponse to the question of, "what did you tell your wife," these investigators would indict me for lying when I wasn't lying to THEM. I was telling them how I was lying to my wife.

Based upon your statement, I would like you to demonstrate how this isn't true (if you believe it isn't) rather than state "he isn't being charged with lying to reporters" in a conclusory fashion.

I don't believe for a second Libby is stupid enough to commit perjury.

[Cboldt]

In other words, if I told my wife I was at a lodge meeting last night and that wasn't true, but told investigators, "I was at a lodge meeting" in reponse to the question of, "what did you tell your wife," these investigators would indict me for lying when I wasn't lying to THEM. I was telling them how I was lying to my wife.

Based upon your statement, I would like you to demonstrate how this isn't true (if you believe it isn't) rather than state "he isn't being charged with lying to reporters" in a conclusory fashion.

Without getting into the truth of the allegations in the indictment, it (the indictment) does not ring of the hypothetical story you paint regarding your hypothetical married life.

If you can't see the difference on reading the indictment, then you have reading comprehension issues.

[kabar]

No an indictment will do.

[Cboldt]

No an indictment will do.

Indict me then, if you can ;-)

Cboldt MOONS kabar - BIGTIME

[Nevermore]

I've got no reason to defend Woodward, but "withheld it" from whom? There's no indication here that Fitz conducted a serious investigation. And when prosecutors do a sloppy job like that, after they compound it by issuing an unwarranted indictment, the unquestioned witnesses are bound to come forward and embarass him. I expect Woodward had every expectation that there was no foundation for a prosecution. Why would he complicate his own life by seeking out Fitz during the GJ proceedings?

[1L]

Here's the example from the text:

"a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;"

The question is: did Libby tell the DOJ that he was surprised to hear this info, or was he telling the DOJ that he told Russert he was surprised to hear the info? I haven't seen anything that shows the prosecutor understands that Libby was intentionally lying to reporters.

I don't know why you think my hypothetical isn't relevent. It is.

[Sacajaweau]

First of all: Libby is charged "by his position" to keep secrets. I'd be surprised, too if I heard a question from a reporter regarding classified info. And I would do exactly what Libby did. Throw the ball back to the reporter without revealing that the info was classified.

How did that reporter "know enough" to ask the question. And yet, NOT ONE of these reporters contacted Joe himself or the Dem Party rather than the Whitehouse in seeking "the truth".

[Cboldt]

I don't know why you think my hypothetical isn't relevent. It is.

Only because you make up a question that isn't asked in the indictment.

You cited paragraph 32.a., which describes Libby's testimony. Paragraph 33.a. expresses directly why your hypothetical isn't relevant, Libby is charged with making misleading statements to the GJ.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. 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

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:

• In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
• On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
• On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
• On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger;
• On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
• On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
• In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

The question is: did Libby tell the DOJ that he was surprised to hear this info, or was he telling the DOJ that he told Russert he was surprised to hear the info? I haven't seen anything that shows the prosecutor understands that Libby was intentionally lying to reporters.

The prosecutor says Libby was lying to investigators and to the GJ.

Maybe you can explain the relevance you see in an allegation that Libby was lying to reporters. Lying to reporters is not illegal. The charge, in a conclusory fashion as stated by the prosecutor, is lying to investigators and the GJ. That is what the words in the indictment say.

[NRA1995]

I would think this whole affair has set off enough bullshit detectors by this time for the indictment to be dropped.....

[b4its2late]

Yep. Looks like the gloves have just fallen off the Fitzgerald indictment.

[meema]

LOL. They can certainly forget about their 'law' to protect them, can't they!

[Sacajaweau]

The reference to Valerie as Plame makes me think that Valerie's "outer" predates her marriage to Joe. If Libby called the CIA, would they refer to her as Valerie Plame, Mrs. Wilson or Valerie Wilson to Libby?

Personally, I'd call her Valerie Wilson, in order to keep the connection and I would think the CIA would also.

[1L]

>> The prosecutor says Libby was lying to investigators and to the GJ.<<

I know what the prosecutors are saying and what they think. What I'm trying to get through to you is that they are either mistaken or intentionally ignoring the fact that the lies that they allege on Libby's part are NOT lies to the GJ or the FBI, but statements made to the GJ or the FBI about lies Libby told to reporters.

Can you point to me anything in the inidictment or anything else in Libby's testimony that was, in fact, an erroneous statement of fact? When I stated "I went to a lodge meeting", I was telling the investigator what I told my wife, not that I actually went to the lodge meeting. In this case, the investigator is charging me with the false statement that I made under oath, saying "I went to a lodge meeting," when I did no such thing.

I believe that in at least SOME of Libby's statements that are the basis of the indictment, the prosecutor is charging Libby with perjury about the statements Libby made to reporters that are, in fact untrue. It isn't, as you seem to be getting confused about, that the prosecutor is charging Libby with lying to Russert; it is that the prosecutor believes that what Libby said to Russert was what Libby believes to be true -- and what Libby stated as fact, and it isn't.

None of what you posted refute that.

>> Maybe you can explain the relevance you see in an allegation that Libby was lying to reporters. <<

I HAVE. Three times at least. It isn't that there is an ALLEGATION that Libby lied to reporters. Its that there is an allegation that Libby lied to prosecutors when he stated what he told reporters, when those statemenst were, in fact, untrue. As I stated in my previous post, since the prosecutor does not state in his indictment that he understands Libby was lying to reporters, I'm not sure the prosecutor understands the distinction between Libby's statements to the GJ/FBI about his discussions with reporters and what Libby was stating to the GJ/FBI that was meant to be statements of fact.

If you, like the prosecutor, believe Libby lied, it is YOUR burden to show what he lied about. You haven't come close to that.

[Cboldt]

If you, like the prosecutor, believe Libby lied, it is YOUR burden to show what he lied about. You haven't come close to that.

The prosecutor says Libby's testimony lead them to think that Libby never called the CIA to learn of Plame's status.

[Cboldt]

It isn't, as you seem to be getting confused about, that the prosecutor is charging Libby with lying to Russert; it is that the prosecutor believes that what Libby said to Russert was what Libby believes to be true -- and what Libby stated as fact, and it isn't.

Neither, actually.

The charge is that whatever Libby told Russert, true or not; he gave prosecutors a different version of what he told Russert, true or not.

Its that there is an allegation that Libby lied to prosecutors when he stated what he told reporters, when those statemenst were, in fact, untrue.

No, it's not that. The "lie" to prosecutors is the difference between what he said he told reporters vs. what he actually told reporters. The indictment is clear on its face.

[snowrip]

"But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid."

So in other words, the seriousness of the charge trumps the lack of material or testimonial evidence in this matter. Of course, logic DOES in fact dictate that Woodward's disclosure UTTERLY alters the anlysis of the indictment's validity.

For all your self-congratulatory wordsmithing, you are unable to change your spots.

[Wil H]

Can you remember who told you what two years ago?

This was a relatively insignificant fact when he learned it , why would it be "seared in his memory"?

It wasn't like he was spending Christmas in Cambodia was it?

[muawiyah]

Assume they have fax numbers/lines already set up that are suitible for classified transmission. This is the White House and CIA headquarters involved.