Skip to comments.
More Allegations of Libby Lies Revealed
Washington Post ^
| February 4, 2006
| Carol D. Leonnig
Posted on 02/03/2006 11:39:53 PM PST by Daralundy
Judge's Report Shows Cheney Aide Is Accused Of Broad Deception
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case alleged that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff was engaged in a broader web of deception than was previously known and repeatedly lied to conceal that he had been a key source for reporters about undercover operative Valerie Plame, according to court records released yesterday.
The records also show that by August 2004, early in his investigation of the disclosure of Plame's identity, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald had concluded that he did not have much of a case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for illegally leaking classified information. Instead, Fitzgerald was focused on charging Cheney's top aide with perjury and making false statements, and knew he needed to question reporters to prove it.
The court records show that Libby denied to a grand jury that he ever mentioned Plame or her CIA job to then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer or then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller in separate conversations he had with each of them in early July 2003. The records also suggest that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he first spoke to Miller about Plame in June 2003, and that prosecutors learned of the nature of the conversation only when Miller finally testified late in the fall of 2005.
All three specific allegations are contained in previously redacted sections of a U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that were released yesterday. The opinion analyzed Fitzgerald's secret evidence to determine whether his case warranted ordering reporters to testify about their confidential conversations with sources.
Fitzgerald revealed none of these specifics when he publicly announced Libby's indictment in October on charges of making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 200306; 200408; 200510; caroldleonnig; carolleonnig; cialeak; leonnig; libby; plame; plamenamegame; scooterlibby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
I must say I don't see the web of lies they say occurred.
1
posted on
02/03/2006 11:39:57 PM PST
by
Daralundy
To: Daralundy
All these reporters will be brought to the witness stand to testify. That's what the Post doesn't want!
2
posted on
02/03/2006 11:45:28 PM PST
by
BobS
To: Daralundy
Fleischer recalled before the grand jury that Libby did mention Plame and said she worked in the "counterproliferation area of the CIA." Fleischer said Libby stressed that "the vice president did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . he was sent by his wife."
No harm there, Fleischer had clearence...where is the story? It was Joe Wilson who was running around lying by suggesting the VP was behind his trip. Judith Miller already had learned of a "Flame" before she met Libby.
ZZzzzzzZzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzZzzzzzz
3
posted on
02/03/2006 11:49:17 PM PST
by
AZRepublican
("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
To: BobS
I heard the trial is delayed until next year.
To: Anti-Bubba182
I heard that it's delayed until Jan., 2007.
What's up with that?
5
posted on
02/03/2006 11:54:23 PM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
To: dixiechick2000
I have no idea. I was shocked that there would be such a delay.
To: Daralundy
The court records show that Libby denied to a grand jury that he ever mentioned Plame or her CIA job to then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer or then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller in separate conversations he had with each of them in early July 2003. The records also suggest that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he first spoke to Miller about Plame in June 2003, and that prosecutors learned of the nature of the conversation only when Miller finally testified late in the fall of 2005. Libby denied mentioning Plame in July 2003. He did talk to Miller in June 2003. Did Fitz ask him about June 2003 or just July as this says? I don't see a lie, either. Considering she wasn't a covert agent, so no crime was committed because nothing was leaked, and Fitz himself says "I don't know if there was any damage", this just looks like a career-killer for Fitz.
7
posted on
02/03/2006 11:58:26 PM PST
by
cgk
(I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
To: dixiechick2000
This vast web of lies is so vast that a whole bunch of lawyers will spend a whole bunch of money proving nada and it will take a whole bunch of time
I wanna know when do they tell us if Rove is off the hook?
8
posted on
02/03/2006 11:58:38 PM PST
by
woofie
To: dixiechick2000; Anti-Bubba182
The delay was apparently from Libby's lawyer having a schedule conflict in the September 2006, so the judge pushed it to Jan 2007.
That's just about far enough away for everyone to forget and not wonder what happened so they can bury the news about the "not guilty" or similar verdict.
9
posted on
02/04/2006 12:01:30 AM PST
by
cgk
(I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
To: Anti-Bubba182
Well...it's the government, after all.
10
posted on
02/04/2006 12:02:09 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
To: woofie
" I wanna know when do they tell us if Rove is off the hook?"
I wish that was in the cards.
But, as long as he's "the brain",
it ain't gonna happen.
Not in the court of public opinion, that is.
To tell you the truth, I like it.
He's scarey. LOL
11
posted on
02/04/2006 12:09:46 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
To: cgk
I wish they would spend the same time and money on this:
Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?
It is a lot more serious and Fitzgerald never determined if the disclosure of Plame's name was illegal in itself, but made the case about purported lies to the Grand Jury.
To: cgk
Thanks for the info!
It's much appreciated.
And, your point is well taken. ;o)
13
posted on
02/04/2006 12:12:57 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
To: Daralundy
It'll be most interesting to see how wide the net is cast in this investigation, and how the press supports it, and then see them back off when it comes to using the same methods in investigating the wiretap leak.
To: Anti-Bubba182
The trial is delayed until next January. There is also something called discovery:) Libby's lawyers can call anybody they want to give testimony.
There is also the NSA leak case percolating into a big federal case involving the New York Times. Maybe we will see dozens of "reporters" and whoever they know in jail for a year for contempt? This is going to be a great year!
15
posted on
02/04/2006 12:15:23 AM PST
by
BobS
To: cgk
I found this analysis by Mark Levin on his blog.
In his excellent analysis from February 02, 2006, Byron York writes, in part (all emphasis is mine):
In a December 14, 2005, letter to Fitzgerald, [Lewis] Libby's lawyers asked for "Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee." In the same letter, Libby's team asked for "All documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." (Those dates mark the period in which some Bush-administration officials discussed Wilson with reporters.)
Fitzgerald declined both requests. "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document," he wrote in a January 9, 2006, response. In any event, Fitzgerald argued, "we would not view an assessment of the damaged caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony that the grand jury alleged was false."
On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." Although Fitzgerald said that "if we locate" such documents, he might turn them over, he argued that he has no responsibility to do so, because they are not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice prosecution...
16
posted on
02/04/2006 12:22:08 AM PST
by
coffee260
(coffee(I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!))
To: Darkwolf377
I'm looking forward to little Timmy Russert and Andrea Mitchell explaining under oath the known and documented conversation about "everybody knew".
The whining and footstomping,the wrapping in press freedom ad nasuem pronouncements, the protected privilege clause lurking unbeforeknown in the constitution,oh my, it will be grand.
To: BobS
This is going to be a great year!
We can hope, but on the NSA leak I will believe it when I see it.
To: dixiechick2000
I heard that it's delayed until Jan., 2007.
What's up with that?
Dems hoping to make hay of it in 2008?
19
posted on
02/04/2006 12:43:54 AM PST
by
Jaysun
(The plain truth is that I am not a fair man, and don't want to hear both sides.)
To: smoothsailing
Agreed. I've read a little about Libby's lawyer and he's going to have a great time dragging every one of these "everybody knew" people up there. I can already SEE the New York Times's editorials about the Libby lawyer's "attacks on the free press--not just the ideal, but the actual innocent reporters" blah blah blah. Fun times!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson