New Libby Material - The Cheney Notes

There is lots of new Libby material, so let's cut off a chewable bite.  Here is Newsweek on the Cheney-annotated Wilson op-ed.

And here are Fitzgerald's filing and the exhibits - the annotated op-ed is Exhibit A.

My two cents - if Newsweek wants to have fun by pretending this points at Cheney, let them - anything to sell papers.  But if anyone else wants to make that case, comments and trackbacks are open.

As to Libby, how is this not a major problem?  We all knew Cheney was interested, we all knew Cheney had mentioned Ms. Plame to Libby in June, but we did not know that Cheney had this documented interest in "the wife" on July 6.

How can Libby square that with his testimony that he had forgotten his June chat about Plame, and that when he heard about her from Tim Russert on July 10, it was if for the very first time?

And since Cheney's note is "Did his wife send him on a junket?", doesn't that make it highly likely that the conversation noted in the indictment at point 18 actually occurred:

18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.

That sounds to me like the Chief of Staff, Libby, is following up on his boss's query about a junket.  Is it Libby's story that Cheney asked these questions of someone else, and ran it all without Libby's involvement?  Why would Cheney cut his Chief of Staff out of this?

I'm not saying I have become skeptical of Libby's story - I have never liked it.  But this latest seems like a real puzzle for his defenders (hmm, that includes me...)

UPDATE:  Well, paraphrasing Cecil Turner - Fitzgerald had this exhibit, Cheney's statement, and Libby's notebooks - did Cheney say he showed these notes to Libby and discussed them with him, or not?  And if Cheney did so, why not put that in the indictment?

ONE WEEK LATER: The defense responds - Libby's testimony was that he never saw this.  Of course, not seeing it is different from not discussing it with Cheney, but still.

Comments

[kim]

Confused answer to a confused question.
==========================

[kim]

I'm still betting that there was some new aspect of the case revealed to Libby which provoked the 'as for the first time'. It may even be a deliberate reference to a 'deja vu'.

Cheney's dawning comprehension of Wilson's wife's role supports Rove's hint of a 'trap'. Isn't Cheney's fisking of Joe's article immense? The Iron Fisk in the Velvet Love.
=========================================

[eli]

It points to Cheney, if there were going to be a IIPA charge, or a classified leak prosecution.

Obviously. And obviously the difficulty with those cases probably makes that very unlikely.

It's mostly just a nasty political barb... They played the "journalists kept saying to us" card too many times for this not to be a little embarrasing.

[kim]

Except, eli, by July 6th it's very likely they had heard it from journalists. Do you begin to see?
=====================================

[kim]

Remember too, please, that Cheney has declassification authority. It would seem to me to be his duty if he had knowledge from reporters that is classified, that he can legally declassify it in order to counter a disinformation campaign, a campaign dangerous to the republic.
===============================

[Marcel]

Kim is right - Cheney having authority to declassify is huge. It is Libby's best defense. The President said he would deal with anyone who had leaked classified information. When he said that, he knew that the information passed along by Libby (and Rove) had been declassified.

[kim]

It's just politically embarrassing. But she was, in fact, fair game; by her actions, Joe's actions, and probably those of others.

Really, it's a slam dunk. If they just hadn't been so secretive.
=================================

[boris]

Regarding such "reminders", if Libby heard about Wilson's wife from Woodward rather than Russert the timing could predate the op-ed and Cheney's annotation.

Otherwise it makes little sense that if Wilson's wife was part of the official pushback they wouldn't have been upfront about it. Authorization to discus the NIE and the trip would also apply to Plame if that was the plan.

[eli]

So they declassified her identity?
This is news. I've heard that about the NIE (although they can't say for sure when they declassified it).

And I thought it wasn't classified anyway.

Confused.

[maryrose]

I have a solution to end this kerfuffle. Give Joe and Val a lie detector test. When they flunk give them the choice of confessing all to Fitz or Val loses her pension and benefits.

[eli]

Also, is just telling someone something "declassifying" it? I would have thought you'd have to:
alert the CIA
document it
etc

Do you have a cite for this?

[kim]

eli, hon, had she been classified she was declassified. We've yet to see if she was classified. That may be some of the reason for the hesitation about the formal declassifying.
============================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It's more mountain of a molehill stuff. It's a perfectly understandable question; Do we normally do things this way, ask people to work for us pro bono? Did his wife send him on a junket?

Remember Wells telling Walton, 'It's a slice, only a slice.'? And, how do we know Cheney wasn't writing it to himself? I doodle notes to myself like this all the time.

Even if Libby did see it, why should he remember something so trivial several months later?

[maryrose]

kim;
Agreed Val is fair game because she insinuated herself into the trip and told Joe of her occupation at the CIA.

[eli]

I'm just seeing where the talking points are today, sweetie.

[kim]

Sourpuss, can't you be serious?
===================

[kim]

If you were serious you'd ask for the referral letter. It's existence was leaked, why not it's substance?
================================

[SteveMG]

where the talking points are today, sweetie

There are talking points here?

Most of the time we're all over the place. Twelve conversations going on simultaneously.

And when they get in the real tall grass of this case, I'm lost.

More like garbling points to me.

SMG

[Patton]

Let me take a stab at explaining this to the right wingers from a left field perspective:

1. The fact we can't prove a conspiracy just proves how deep and extensive the Bush conspiracy is..

2. The fact we can't find any evidence showing Bush lied about WMD just proves what great evil conspirators these republicans are...

3. The fact that Bush is a complete mindles idiot just shows how imporant Cheney is to controlling the evil conspiracy.

4. Just because Bush is an idiot, doesn't mean he's not an idiot sevant who is good at a few things like evil conpriaciesnd stealing elections from the brightest men who ever lived.

5. Just because the Bush National Guard documents were fake, doesn't mean Bush didn't go AWOL. They were fake but accurate.
And because the Niger documents were forgeries, they couldn't possibly be fake but accurate. They prove Bush lied about everything he said since 1962.

[eli]

SMG-

My bad, you're right.

I have argued on occasion with folks insisting she was not classified.

[kim]

We don't know if she was classified, or what that word even means, evergreens.
===============================

[Patton]

"""But this latest seems like a real puzzle for his defenders""""

I don't think it is a problem at all. We have never claimed everything Libby said was ground truth. What we have said is people can confuse dates and conversations when asked about the six months later.

That doesn't mean they are intentionally lying... it may simply mean they don't have total recall of every detail of every conversation, especially on a single issue when they work hundreds of issues per day.

Think of an issue you discussed with several people six months ago...can you remember the dates of those conversations? And the substance of the discussion?

Libby has never claimed that the Vice President didn't say those things, he's said he didn't recall it....now how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had to have recalled it??

Doesn't that require that memory has to be perfect?

Did the Vice President give Libby 50 other things to worry about that day? Did they involve the torture of hostages, the lives of our soldiers, the actions of our enemies and the little wifey thing??

I would ask the jury? have you ever forgotten a password to an account on-line? How is that possible, you just signed on 3 days ago? Have you ever forgotten a loved ones address, or phone number? How is that possible? Are they the people closest and dearest to you?

Well, if ou have, that is reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby would have total recall of all conversations.

[eli]

Patton,

Is there any perjury charge that you would buy?

This defense seems, um, universal.

[kim]

Confusing questions in an inadequately investigated prosecution does seem to be a universal marker of this affair.
================================

[eli]

Snook'ems.

You haven't seen ANY prosecution evidence yet.

[clarice]

Ahem..Didn't Libby testify he heard it from Cheney. Weren't there reporters talking about it first? Didn't in fact Cooper know from Calibresi, Miller (see his number in her notes), Russert says he didn't but then he seems to have been the only msnbc journo who didn't. Woodward knew. Novak knew.I am certain Kristof and Corn knew. Cliff May knew. Mitchell knew. General Vallely knew.

This is nonsense and fodder for reporters who really aren't paying attention and want to carry the ball for Joe.

The "evidence" in the media that Fitz wants to put before the jury is simply what he cannot call Ambassador Munchausen to say directly because Wilson is not credible.He isn't putting it in to prove much. But its prejudicial impact certainly outweighs what he claims he wants it for , and he has other ways to get in the non-prejudicial part assuming he has it.

The test he's setting up for introducing prejudicial media in a political show trial is did the official read the articles, did he make notations on them and (per the Time story) did he demand they correct a misquoatation of him?

From my piece which is going up tomorrow or Monday."Fitzgerald also wants to show the jury annotations apparently made by Vice President Cheney to the article to demonstrate that he and Libby were focused on the assertions in the article and in responding to them. So what? This is evidence in a case which the prosecutor claims is a small case about perjury respecting conversations with three reporters. Nowhere in the Op Ed does Wilson mention his wife or her role or her employment. If every article that caught an official’s attention—because, I might say, it involved a pack of lies harmful to an important matter—were to be considered evidence of wrongdoing, no one would be safe from such ridiculous probes."

[Cecil Turner]

As to Libby, how is this not a major problem? We all knew Cheney was interested, we all knew Cheney had mentioned Ms. Plame to Libby in June, but we did not know that Cheney had this documented interested in "the wife" on July 6.

If there is some indication Libby saw that before he talked to Miller, or that he and the VP discussed this in particular between the 6th and the 8th, it is a major problem for Libby. But I'd be surprised, if that's the case, that it doesn't show up in the indictment or Fitz's recent filing. And if he never saw it . . .

[MayBee]

So is all this to counter Libby's statement about Russert, that at that moment he didn't even remember if Wilson had a wife?

You know what is interesting about the Pincus article being entered. Someone (not contending it was Libby) told Pincus his wife sent him on the junket, and Pincus didn't believe that- previously he had been unsure Wilson had a wife.

I don't know if every word Libby said about his Russert conversation is accurate. My problem has been all along that this doesn't seem like justice to me.
If a man doesn't commit a crime, but is found guilty of saying he didn't remember at the time that someone was married, we've hit a bit of a low point in legal history. IMHO.

[loki]

How is this testimony material to the overall case? Plus perjury conviction REQUIRES proof of MENS REA.

[Syl]

"as if" for the first time was not forgetting it. It was putting himself in the state of mind of not know so he wouldn't confirm info officially to Russert.

I suspect the same with Cooper.

Libby's problem isn't that he claims he forgot Cheney told him, it's that he forgot which reporter told him and when.

[loki]

Eli, read Tile XVIII, Sect 1623. Convicting someone on perjury is very difficult, whether you are Scooter Libby or Barry Bonds.

[PeterUK]

Patton the best would be wife/husband etc birthday,life just keeps getting in the way of perfection.

[clarice]

And a major problem for Fitz is that his case revolves around a lying big mouth who he can't put on the stand.He also cannot show an intention on Libby's part to lie, and he keeps trying to get in through the backdoor hints of "classified" and "harm" which he cannot prove. And, of course, his witnesses in chief are members of the media who have no notes that say he said what they say he said (cooper and Miller) or what he didn't (Russert).

[Patton]

Eli just off the deep end:

""""Patton,

Is there any perjury charge that you would buy?"""

ABSOLUTELY, AND IT IS NO WHERE NEAR UNIVERSAL.

You are talking about a few conversations six months earlier. Now let's take another busy guy that works in politics...say Bill Clinton:

Question: Were you ever alone with Ms. Lewinsky?

Clinton: No

Now every man knows that if you are having sex with a girl half you age in your office you will CERTAINLY be able to remember being alone with her. And if Libby had sex with Plame and then denied it, I would find him guilty of perjury.

But we are not talking about ACTIONS, we are talking about conversations.

If Libby had followed Plame home in his car and then denied it, I would find him guilty...you could certainly remeber taling soemone.

If Libby has spit in Joe Wilsons crab cake and denied it, I would find him guitly.

But if six months later you asked him to recall every conversation he had about spitting in the crab cake, I would understand that he may not recall exactly.

If Clinton had talked to ten people in six days about having sex with interns, I would not expect him to have complete recall of the order and content of those conversations.

[clarice]

Why do juries so often ask to have the transcripts read back to them? Twelve people heard the testimong. Don't you think they all heard it the same way and had perfect recollection of it?

[clarice]

***testimonY****

[PeterUK]

BTW Does Fitz have clearance?

[cathyf]

I have argued on occasion with folks insisting she was not classified.

Her CIA affiliation was not classified, because according to Executive Order 13292 Sec. 1.7. (a) (1), (2), and (4) that information was not classifiable.

cathy :-)

[clarice]

I'm seeing that as if for the very first time, Cathy.I remember looking that up early on and then promptly forgetting why I knew her employment wasn't "classified". Fitz keeps sayiing that because he knows people will confuse that with "covert" and from there they will more readily accept his now abandoned for lack of evidence claim of harm to national security.

[eli]

If it's Clinton... I should have thought of that.

Seriously, though... I'm not going round and round. You obviously believe Libby forgot about his pushback that his boss tasked him with. I think you're sympathetic enough with him, you would be very unlikely to find fault with him in any case [there's a lot of that on both sides].

This is why we have juries. We'll see.

[clarice]

eli, I know that to people of a certain mindset, "his wife sent him" is a better refutation of the lies, that the NIE , but I don't think the OVP is among that subset of the semi-literate.

[windansea]

Leopold sez Karl has been indicted

here is the proof:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1181889

[clarice]

HEH! Looks like one person there hasn't lost his wit in that cesspool .

[Joe D.]

What was the date of the Cheney's notes? The newspaper's publish date? A week later? A month later? After a reporter brought it Wilson's wife? Obviously the paper was sitting around for a while if Fitz has it now.

[Syl]

I'm not sure he forgot. I'm mot even sure he actually claimed he forgot.

'As if for the first time' is not the same as 'for the first time.'

He didn't leak to Russert. He didn't confirm to Cooper. He mentioned it to Miller but it's not clear whether Miller already knew or whether she may have brought it up herself in one of the convos.

If Libby 'leaked' to Miller, he would be censured and lose his security clearance. He would not be criminally prosecuted because Miller didn't print and could be told not to.

So Libby did not obstruct a criminal investigation because Libby wasn't subject to one.

Fitz only wants to punish someone for allegedly punishing a whistleblower. But Wilson wasn't a whistleblower by statute because Wilson had no direct knowledge of what he was accusing the administration of.

There is nothing criminal here, there is only politics.

[SteveMG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

Hmm, my biohazard suit is at the dry cleaners (orange isn't really my color since I'm 6'4"; but what can a guy do?)

No way I'm wading in that toxic waste site without it.

SMG

[windansea]

No way I'm wading in that toxic waste site without it.

the post at DU has a verry funny photo

[maryrose]

It's hard to remain optimistic that justice will prevail when it doesn't seem like we are playing with a fair deck of cards. Why is Fitz concealing so much information and resorting as clarice calls it "razzle dazzle.:. He should lay his cards on the table and put forth his premise and give the defense what it needs to try this case. Stop grandstanding and telling us what this case is NOT about. Lay it out there and take your lumps when the judge sees you really don't have a substantial case.

[SteveMG]

the post at DU has a verry funny photo

Got it.

Very good.

If I start scratching and itching like crazy, you'll get my bill.

SMG

[clarice]

maryrose, this is a game like poker..everyone wants to keep his hole card hidden from everyone else.