Maybe Libby Can Try An Insanity Defense

Here is the nine page press release which summarizes the twenty-two page indictment of Lewis Libby.

Some obvious puzzles remain:

Who was Novak's source?

Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame's identity?

Will there be other charges against other officials?

As to the indictment:

The charges against Libby with respect to Russert are gruesome - if Russert is to be believed (and Fitzgerald believed him), Libby simply invented a conversation in which Russert passed to Libby info about Wilson's wife.  I can't imagine what Libby could have been thinking, and I wish I had been a bit more trusting of Tim's bizarre denial.

The discrepancy between Libby and Cooper is not cavernous, but it is not good.

The Judy Miller story seems to be strangely incomplete - the June 23 conversation, which came as a late disclosure, is not mentioned here.

Finally, Libby's general story - he learned about Plame from reporters - was daft.  Libby had multiple conversations with government officials (State, CIA, the VP, Ari Fleischer) involving Plame.  Did he think they would *all* forget when they talked to investigators?  If I weren't reading his testimony, I would not believe he had gone down this road.

A small part of Libby's problem, I'll bet, is that his misleading testimony, especially about Russert, forced Fitzgerald to waste a lot of time pursuing subpoenas against reporters.

I will also guess that Rove was caught in Libby's tailwind - Libby's story was so phony that problems with Rove's story probably took on a more sinister tone than if they had ocurred in isolation.

Two asides:

However embarrassing it might be, the NY Times may be forced to confront the fact that Nick Kristof is an important part of this story, since Fitzgerald essentially dates the beginning of this story to Kristof's May 6 column.  The column was riddled with inaccuracies which Mr. Wilson has since disavowed - let's see if the Times tackles this.

And, per the summary (p. 5), it will be a bit harder for Joe Wilson and his many defenders to sustain the notion that his wife was not involved with selecting him for this trip:

...on or about June 11, 2003, Libby was informed by a senior officer of the CIA that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

IIRC, it appears that Libby told Ari Fleischer about Ms. Plame on July 7, which is the day that phone logs show Novak calling Ari.  Surely that adds to the possibilty that Ari was Novak's first source.

MORE:  A chance to help, or hurt Libby's case - from the indictment:

On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim
Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Russert.

A Lexis-Nexis maven might be able to deduce the show that prompted  Libby's irate call.  I *think* Russert said it was a "cable" news show when explaining his role to Brian Williams, which would match with the "MSNBC" in the indictment.

The point?  Well, let's see what we find.  But if Libby called Russert to complain because he was panned for his role in the Wilson saga, it may be a bit more plausible that he and Russert discussed the Wilson trip.  And that might be relevant in a he said/he said courtroom showdown.

Of course, if he was panned for his bad taste in cowboy hats, that could be a killer.

[UPDATE:  Michael Crowley of The Plank at TNR is way ahead of me, and nominates this Chris Matthews rant about Libby, Wilson, and Niger from July 8.  *If* this is right, then Libby and Russert surely discussed Joe Wilson, and the dispute is over whether Wilson's wife was also mentioned.  Well, it is a small breeze blowing Libby's way.  As to Russert, let's guess that he has been asked by the prosecutor not to tip his testimony by addressing this in public.  Is he a newsman, or a lawman, and what about our right to know?]

Look, *if* Libby is not insane (likely, actually) and *if* he turned down a plea deal (do we know that?), he must think he can defend this case.  But how?

Comments

[Cecil Turner]

CT-if you think the prosecution hinges solely on Russert-you're mistaken. Libby's testimony is contradicted by a slew of administration officials.

Obviously they can't contradict the part about what Russert told Libby (or what Libby and Cooper discussed). And if you think a prosecution can't be torpedoed by Kristof taking the stand and telling that he knew Plame's identity in May (and shared it amongst fellow reporters)--or refuses to testify--I think you're mistaken. I also look forward to the prospect of Wilson, Plame, and Kristof on the stand.

[Creepy Dude]

Jim-the GAO know exactly how many "millions". It wasn't even at 1 million 15 months into it. So probably not even over 1 now.

In contrast-we are up to 20 million in the prosecution of Clinton cabinet officer Mike Espy. Still not completed btw.

But let's stick to the facts. Please lay out Libby's defense.

[Creepy Dude]

First off-if he refuses to tesify he gets the Miller treatment. So don't worry.

And I still don't see how Kristof's testimony thereto would make anything Libby swore to about how he learned of Plames ID truthful-or make anything the other White House people said untruthful.

You might have a point if Libby was charged with espionage-but he's charged with perjury etc.

[topsecretk9]

well for one it will dispense with stupidest cooked up cult recruting term 'evil cabal'

and secondly I think we will learn that contrary to what his ego would have him believe, joe wilson was only discussed in the WH as what the silly clown he is

this scenario, the way things have panned, is the worst Joe Wilson could have hoped for...no crime, but it's not going away. He's bummed.

[topsecretk9]

I just pray Libby doesn't puss out.

[Creepy Dude]

Indeed-per TM's title-Libby's credibility is impeached by his own notes. He's a goner.

[Barney Frank]

Hey creepy dude,
I'm not sure your response to my question is internally logical.
On the one hand you say Fitz is looking for maximum leverage on Libby to flip him while at the same time you say he only brought the charges he can surely prove. If he's looking for leverage then he doesn't have to have an airtight case regarding the leaking classified documents, he just needs the hammer of an indictment.
Additionally, if he is interested in going after Cheney, then he is indeed eventually going to have to prove intent to divulge classified info and to have a conspiracy.
So my question remains unanswered. I will however agree to take a class in Prosecution 101 if you agree to simultaneously enroll in Logic 101.

[arrowhead]

topsecretk9: "this scenario, the way things have panned, is the worst Joe Wilson could have hoped for...no crime, but it's not going away. He's bummed."

Exactly. At least there's that.

Creepy Dude: "Please lay out Libby's defense."

Rather than repeat what has been said so well by others, I refer you to earlier excellent posts by Syl, Clarice, Boris, vnjagvet, Cecil, and many others on this thread.

[Creepy Dude]

"he doesn't have to have an airtight case regarding the leaking classified documents, he just needs the hammer of an indictment."

I agree Barney. And if you read the indictment it sure looks like Fitz could go for it. So exactly. I think Fitz has these charges hanging over Libby's head.

Remember-sources "close to Rove" say Rove gave Fitz something to keep Rove from being indicted at the last second. Whatever "it" was, perhaps it led Fitz to pull back on the leaking charge against Libby (and Rove-er "Official A") while he follows up Rove's lead.

[Creepy Dude]

Hey Jim, I did read those comments and I'll humbly repeat my request for someone to lay out Libby's defense. Cuz that aint it.

[arrowhead]

Creey Dude: "Remember-sources "close to Rove" say Rove gave Fitz something to keep Rove from being indicted at the last second. Whatever "it" was, perhaps it led Fitz to pull back on the leaking charge against Libby (and Rove-er "Official A") while he follows up Rove's lead."

Dream on.

[Gary Maxwell]

"Maxwell, you're right. I'm sure the press will order Fitz to drop the charges seeing all the sway they hold over him."

Are you a dumb Ass to go with being an obnoxious liberal?

Where did anyone say that the press was going to get the prosecutor to throw out charges?

But listen carefully here. I will type slowly so that you can get at least a portion of this. An indictment is not a conviction. A conviction has to come from a jury of peers.

Many jurors will not go in sympathetic to the media. A good lawyer will make the MSM look, well like the MSM. It will not increase sympathy for the MSM. It will make a conviction more difficult especially if there is a Nick Kristof sliming his way through an admission that most of what he wrote was rife with errors and he knew it long ago but never corrected it. If he refused to testify and takes the 5th, the jury will see it as a win for the defense. If he has to get immunity to testify the defense will paint him as a pandering liar who wants to see the administration taken down politically and is only saying whatever it takes to save his own bacon.

On top of all this if Marc Rich and Hillary's brother are eligible for pardons, dont you think the Scooter may get one too?

Here is somethign I had not thought, Fitz may well eventually see all this coming and work very hard to plea this down to something that allows him to avoid having a tattoo applied to his record.

So two years and millions of dollars and we get Lweis Libby volunteering a few hours at Habitat for Hunanity. Big win there Ace.

[Creepy Dude]

Finally a question for my libby loving friends.

read the indictment. Think there any lies in it?

Cause if not there sure is a lot of information that the Administration never revealed and imho positively lied about. Even Scott McClellan believes he was lied
to.

How can you sit there and take that?

[Creepy Dude]

Maxwell-Kristof pleading the 5th is straight outta looneyville.

One of the most (formerly) powerful men in the White House is a liar and a perjuror. And he's not even a competent liar and perjuror.

At least act a little embarassed.

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey Creepy it must really chap you. Rove will begin anew his mind control unfettered by your partisan attempts to remove him. And then Tom DeLay is going to end up shoving your other partisna attempt down your throat and raising a whole ton of money while doing it.

And a real consevative Supreme Court is just around the corner. Stevens has one foot on a banana peel and then you got well Massachusetts.

[Creepy Dude]

Maxwell: as far as Rove and the rest of them skating-there's an anecdote from The Great Terror by Robert Conquest that captures my feeling.

A political prisoner was taken from a torture session, and as he was washing the blood from his face he started to cry. One of the guards told him "Don't cry, my friend, you can always wash off your blood, but those who beat you can never wash the blackness from their hearts."

[drjohn]

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

[Creepy Dude]

Right place, wrong comment.

[decayd]

I have a question:
There are many levels of clearances and many levels of security. Is it legal to divulge information obtained from CIA sources to uncleared individuals
How about to a grand jury consisting of uncleared individuals?
how about to individuals with other types of clearance? say to FBI agents?
If not, unless granted specific permission by CIA, Libby might have believed that he could not reveal information received from CIA to the grand jury!
That could explain his failure to do so!
It would be wierd and unacceptable if revealing the information were a crime, and failing to reveal it was also a crime!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' Plame was a big, big topic among big big people well before she ever came up between Libby and the reporters...'

No, she was merely background information. That's why this entire investigation is ridiculous.

Fitzgerald's bizarre performance yesterday was one huge attempt at self-justification. At the end of which he had to admit there was no crime committed in revealing that Valerie worked at CIA.

No amount of jibberish that JBG can produce will make that fact go away. He didn't indict for the supposed crime he was charged with investigating.

[Marcel]

Today, Libby's lawyer is pushing the "can't be expected to remember details" defense. Others are saying that this happened over 2 years ago. Dubious defense at the best of times. But Libby's testimony in front of the Grand Jury twice in March 2004 was only 8 months after the flurry of activity in July 2003. I'm certainly glad that someone with that poor a memory no longer occupies the 2nd most powerful position on the White House staff.

[cathyf]

At least according to Perry Mason ;-) a first principle for any lawyer, prosecutor or defense, is that if the witness says anything on the stand that the lawyer didn't already know, then the lawyer is in deep trouble. The big problem with this whole Dances With Journalists movie for Fitzgerald is that he may not in fact know whether Russert, Miller and/or Cooper knew that the clandestine guy who went to Niger has a wife working somewhere on the INR/DIA/CIA WMD analysis team that sent the guy to Niger before they talked to Libby. Because of the DoJ rules about limiting fishing expeditions when taking testimony from journaliststs, not to mention a journo who went to jail for 85 days to limit the scope of questioning, he had to be very circumspect in what he asked and didn't ask.

But a defense attorney has no obligation to pull punches, and indeed the obligation to defend his client as vigorously as possible. So what happens when Libby's lawyer puts Miller on the stand and she testifies that she wrote "wife works for bureau?" but she has no idea whether Libby said anything at all about the wife, whether she said it to him, or whether she just thought it in her head. And further, under intensive questioning, admits that because of her extensive WMD reporting, she knew there was a Valerie who was in one of the WMD analysis team at one of the agencies, and that furthermore she had met the Wilsons socially and knew that Joe Wilson's wife was named Valerie.

Then in intensive questioning, the defense attorney elicits testimony from Russert that he did know that Joe Wilson's wife was a WMD analyst, but didn't know her name or which of the agencies she worked for, and certainly not that she was covert. And that he was baiting Libby trying to get more info and told him that "everyone knows Wilson's wife works for INR" and that Libby seemed to be flustered after that.

I'm not saying that this is what happened, I'm just trying to figure out what's the worst-case scenario for Fitzgerald, and what kind of trouble could the DoJ's special rules for journalists get him into? One thing that everyone can agree on is that Fitzgerald's dealings with the journalists have been fraught with difficulty and he has not just been able to force them to come in and spill their guts.

cathy :-)

[Lesley]

Food for Thought

"I’m not going to get involved in speculating about Libby’s guilt or innocence, but these two articles point to the central role of reporters in the case against him. This has two consequences, both problematical for the profession of journalism." -
Peter Schramm, No Left Turns

NYT

WashTimes

[jerry]

Fitzgerald spotted outside office of Jim Sharp, GW Bush's Plame leak lawyer (via TPM):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/politics/29leak.html?pagewanted=all

[Cecil Turner]

One of the most (formerly) powerful men in the White House is a liar and a perjuror. And he's not even a competent liar and perjuror.

The perjury charge, again, depends on the contents of [a] two-sided conversation[s]. In particular, on this being true:

In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

Obviously we only have Cooper's word for what Libby told him. How that's going to be proven at trial, especially as it seems likely Cooper failed to recall he started the conversation with welfare reform, is problematic. "Libby knew" might be pertinent if we're discussing whether he lied to Cooper, but it has nothing to do with this particular charge.

[Barney Frank]

Hey creepy,
When the grand jury is expiring and you have to put up or shut up a responsible prosecuter which Fitz seems, for the most part to be, puts up. I think this idea that Fitz is holding a bunch of cards close to his vest to play down the line with more indictments of Rove and Libby et al is about as realistic as the idea he's going to indict Wilson for perjury before Congress. Partisan pipe dreams all, I'm afraid. He made it as clear as he could that while he is keeping the investigation 'open' this indictment is the end of the line. They always keep it open until they've got a conviction or an acquital. I don't think people on either side hoping for more indictments were listening too closely.
As a very conservative person I must confess I have yet to hear a very plausible defense of Mr. Libby's testimony. He might get off, ala OJ, but it seems fairly cut and dried that when he testified that reporters were his first source he lied. Two Scooters compartmentalizing what he heard? If I was a juror and the defense told me that I'd vote for the death penalty.

[Rick Ballard]

Jerry,

Wonder if he was invited to listen to some recently declassified NSA tapes?

[boris]

Two Scooters compartmentalizing what he heard?

I think you (as well as others) are too focused on what you assume the question was.

Q: What did you say to the reporters?

A: I know I said X because I was thinking Y.

X is the answer to the question.
Y may be implausible but proving perjury on that basis is a very long shot.

I suspect it was deliberate.

[dorf]

Cooper: married to who?

[dorf]

Cooper: married to who?

[Marcel]

Cecil, How do you know that Cooper did start his conversation with welfare reform? Cooper had called earlier to say he wanted to discuss welfare reform. Doesn't mean he did. And how could he have covered 2 topics in a 2-minute conversation. It seems more likely that Rove, preparing for questionning, found the note that Cooper had called (earlier) about welfare reform.

[Cecil Turner]

He might get off, ala OJ, but it seems fairly cut and dried that when he testified that reporters were his first source he lied.

You know, he might have said that somewhere in the testimony, but it sure doesn't come out clearly in the text provided with the indictment. In one case he's talking about responding to a question (and thinking at the time it was new stuff) and not wanting to provide confirmation. In the other he specifically mentions not knowing about Wilson until June. It sounds hokey, but as far as I can tell he doesn't say he first learned of Plame through reporters.

[SteveMG]

Reading about Libby's crazy and clearly false story, it seems to me that the only logical explanation for it would be his desire to string the investigation out past the election.

Imagine if he had admitted early in the investigation that he had revealed Plame's name to the press after having received that information from, inter alia, Cheney. That would have been quite a bit of meat for the Kerry campaign to chew on.

Can't imagine any other reason for Libby to pull this. Clearly he knew that his notes and the testimony of others would have undercut his testimony.

SMG

[clarice]

The idea that Administration officials will be called because they can refute anything about Libby's recollections of his conversations with his lawyers reveals how preposterous this case is...

It is obvious that Libby is testifying about those conversations and not anything else, like where he actually learned of her status, something he was entitled to know and the notes he willingly provided to the SP detailed.

[Geek, Esq.]

Here's one angle that hasn't been mentioned very much:

Scooter faces Big Time trouble if he tries to take the stand in his own defense.

If he does that, he waives his 5th amendment rights.

That means questions like "When did you learn that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and from whom?" become fair game for Scooter to answer.

Under oath.

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, How do you know that Cooper did start his conversation with welfare reform?

Ooops. Actually, I conflated Rove's conversation with Libby's (and apparently you joined me . . . sorry). In that case, Rove's contemporaneous e-mail is persuasive, but it really doesn't apply here (except as a minor ding against Cooper's memory on a vaguely related matter).

[Geek, Esq.]

You know, he might have said that somewhere in the testimony, but it sure doesn't come out clearly in the text provided with the indictment.

I refer you to Libby's testimony:

"[A]t that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that [b]I was first learning[/b]."

[Barney Frank]

Here's one thing that has never made the slightest sense to me.
How does outing Wilson's wife as a CIA agent discredit him?
Wouldn't that make him more credible to most people?
Its not like she was going to be offed by some North Korean if her identity was revealed. She's sittin behind a desk in Langley for cryin out loud. The central rationale the left gives for this 'conspiracy'is non sensical.
With that I shall go do something useful on a glorious fall day besides worry about somebody named Scooter and someone as egregiously dishonest as little Joey Wilson.

[Marcel]

Libby probably believed his concocted story would hold up because (1) he did not expect associates like Hannah and Wurmser to provide contrary - although truthful - testimony and (2) he did expect reporters to refuse to give testimony.

[clarice]

How does Libby get to call Plame and Wilson to the stand? If the question is his state of mind when he responded he could. As he is not being charged with deliberately outing her to retaliate, it may be more difficult.I'd have to think about it.

Why does saying his wife sent him on this Mission discredit him? Because it reveals a truth that he's not adept in this, had no special expertise on the point, and that this was not an assignment based on anything more than nepotism.

[dorf]

Calice: the relevance of of the Plames may only be tied to Fitz's press conference statement yesterday, i.e. how this whole deal will affect agency recruiting, blah blah blah.

[dorf]

Clarice

[Lesley]

Heck, I think Valerie Plame has done more for CIA recruiting that ever before. Think of it: you get to marry a former ambassador, drive around in a Jaguar, wear designer sun glasses (CIA special issue), appear on the cover of Vanity Fair, get your picture taken in fancy restaurants, get invited to celebrity-studded parties, have your husband join a Presidential candidate's election team and get to hang out with even more swell influential beautiful people. Plus, you could end up with a huge contract as a spokesperson for Lady Clairol. What a gig!

[dorf]

Lesley: She gotta represent!!

[Marcel]

Clarice, you obviously don't like Wilson and I'm certainly not a fan. But that doesn't change the fact that he did have qualifications fora ission to Niger. He had held senior diplomatic posts in Africa and Iraq (under Reagan and Bush I), and worked in the NSC (under Clinton) dealing with Africa. He had also undertaken a previous assignment in Niger for the CIA. The assignment in question (in 2002) was not proposed by his wife, although she was consulted about it. This period, in early 2002, was just a few months after 9/11. Surely it was in the CIA's interest to tap all available resources. The nepotism claim is a red herring, but following that argument will likely land Libby in jail.

[dorf]

Marcel: Huh?

[Marcel]

The White House didn't need to privately plant the idea in the Press that the Niger trip was just a boondoggle. Instead, they could have made public statements refuting points raised by Wilson. The route they chose - outing a CIA officer - was politically stupid, and resulted in criminal charges.

[clarice]

I'm certain if Libby hadn't already been working 14 hours a day to save your butt he could have thought up a more artful response, but that doesn't make his comments to the press or his recollections of the conversations perjurious. And, dorf, the comments of the SP at a presser are not part of the case. Though if the Wilsons go thru with their threatened lawsuit, Libby will certainly get a big crack at them.

[Marcel]

Libby was up 14 hours a day saving the butts of his 2 bosses.

[Marcel]

Libby was up 14 hours a day saving the butts of his 2 bosses.

[Marcel]

Libby was up 14 hours a day saving the butts of his 2 bosses.

[dorf]

Clarice: that was Fitz's opening statement in a way. I realize we are not yet in trial, but I bet he uses something close to that in his real opening to "orient" the jury.

[dorf]

Re Civil case: A case and trial would cost millions. Where is the nearest Soros ATM?

[clarice]

dorf, it would in my opinion be reversible error for Fitz to include those comments in an opening statement on a case brought on only these charges.

[clarice]

An opening statement is to outline to the jury what you will prove in this case, and to suggest that the charges brought here had the consequences he claims, would be outside the issues in this case, but if he did make a boneheaded move like that and the Court didn't strike it or call a mistrial, we would indeed see Libby being allowed to call and question Wilson and Plame and their scuzzy supporting cast.

[dorf]

Clarice: roger all of that, I just don't see how the context of the investigation is kept out of the trial. Defense should have one with the press witnesses anyway.

[topsecretk9]

whenever jo jo mojo is pressed on his assertions he blames his aging faulty memory, so I see no reason Libby can't steal a page from Wilson's playbook

[cathyf]

...8 months... I'm certainly glad that someone with that poor a memory no longer occupies the 2nd most powerful position on the White House staff.

Given that, for people who are not autistic, the window of opportunity for deciding whether or not memories are kept permanently is 15 minutes, 8 months might as well be 80 years. Unless of course you are sure that Libby's replacement is going to be autistic. (Well, that could sure make for some interesting staff meetings!)

cathy :-)

[windansea]

Jukebox sez

What a shame that the Butler report doesn't provide a shred of evidence to support its conclusion. And what a shame that even years later no such shred has ever emerged.

Marcel sez

The Brits claim that their source is so sensitive that they cannot reveal the evidence. That is why Bush was only able say: "The British have learned..." The Butler report says there is evidence beyond the forgeries, but doesn't say what. Bottom line - second-hand evidence from a party that is attempting to cover their own ass.

LOL y freakin LOL

you guys are trying to accuse Libby of leaking a covert agent's name AND dangerous classified information

so you want the British government to do the same thing you accuse Libby of....Good one!!

stick to the perjury etc...that's what Fitz has done

[dorf]

....have fun with the press w's

[topsecretk9]

Didn't Kaus quote someone who was arguing what a mistake it was for the left to vilify Miller, well that was probably good advice after all...

The notebook may prove to be more helpful to Libby...Miller will be grilled on her noations Victoria Flame and WInpac

[TM]

On the theme that "sind in the eyes" prevented Fitzgerald from uncoverin ght True Evil of BushCo - we have this from the NY Times:

blockquote>WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 - Among the questions left unanswered in the C.I.A. leak case are the two most basic ones: who first told the columnist Robert D. Novak that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV was a C.I.A. operative, and was her exposure a crime?

There was every indication on Friday that the special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, had resolved the first question, at least to his own satisfaction. (Lawyers in the case have said as much, and Mr. Fitzgerald, with a bit of bravado, said he did not expect that further investigation would produce revelations beyond what he already knows.)

But Mr. Fitzgerald refused to identify Mr. Novak's source, and his answers to that and other questions left an air of murkiness about the actions he was appointed to investigate.

Look, I understand what my friends on the left would *like* to believe.

But, for example, do you seriously doubt that Fitzgerald does not know who leaked to Novak (hint: it was Rove and one other).

IF that was a heinous crime imperiling lives, etc., why no charges on that?

Put another way - despite Libby's lies, it seems that Fitzgerald did establish that Libby and others learned about Plame from non-reporter sources. Or is that in dispute?

Help us out - what key facts do you think Libby successfully concealed?

[dorf]

IMO Fitz is steamed because he thinks Libby's statements caused the investigation to drag out for another year due to the litigation with the reporters. Thus, the indictment for playing telephone.

[SteveMG]

TM:
My guess is that some on the left will say that Libby's actions diverted attention (and time) from the true motives for outing Plame. I.e., to punish Wilson, to send a signal to others in the Agency to not cross the neocons or there would be severe retribution, and to cover the tracks for the forged Niger documents which were really done by Ledeen or Chalabi or some other W.H. connected monster. How it did this latter escapes me; but the left is fixated on the Niger documents and the 16 words so we have to toss that scenario in.

Libby's "senior moment", or maybe that be "senior aide moment", had the extra benefit of kicking the investigatory can down the street until the elections had passed.

By throwing sand up in the air and delaying things, the WH was able to, inter alia, conceal the true motive for the outing.

It's clear to me that Fitzgerald cannot prove what that true motive was. I.e, the intent. The intent to reveal classified information if, as we all pretty much know by now she wasn't a covert agent. He repeatedly said "classified" and not "covert". She wasn't covert at the time.

He can't prove whether Clemens intended to bean Piazza or whether the pitch got away from him.

The left knows otherwise. Of course Clemens was aiming for the head. He was a neo-Yankee.

SMG

[!]

"Help us out - what key facts do you think Libby successfully concealed?"

Most likely the facts which were not documented or were not corroborated by other sources or conflicted with other sources.

I am going to read through the indictment later but so much of what I have seen focuses on conversations in July after Wilson's OP-ED piece.
Does the indictment and or the facts we know from Fitzgerald's press conference even bring up facts from May 6th '03 (Kristoff's column) and July 6th '03(Wilson's column).

Heh. To me, that is where the bulk of the negative facts would be for Libby and others. Since, no one else was charged, I guess that time frame means nothing?

And, at some point in July of '03 didn't Tenet de-classify Plame's id? Sometime around his admission that Wilson's claims were right and the Niger/Iraq link was bad intel? By de-classifying the info in July of '03, that was when Plame was fair game; not before the de-classification of her status as covert.

[EricH]

!:
"Sometime around his [Tenet's] admission that Wilson's claims were right and the Niger/Iraq link was bad intel?"

Whoa, when did Tenet admit that Wilson's claims were right and the Niger/Iraq link was bad intel?

!!

!!!

Tenet admitted that the 16 words should have been removed (or not included) because the CIA could not independently confirm the British intelligence's claim.

Not confirming does not equal bad intel.

[Barney Frank]

"Why does saying his wife sent him on this Mission discredit him?"

Because he stated in writing that the Veep's office sent him AND that his wife had nothing to do with him being picked for the trip.

[Creepy Dude]

Put another way - despite Libby's lies, it seems that Fitzgerald did establish that Libby and others learned about Plame from non-reporter sources. Or is that in dispute?

Perhaps you're misspeaking. But only Libby and his defenders are disputing that.

The indictment and the parade of admin witnesses backing it up all say that Libby got the info on Plame from them.

As Geek quotes above,Libby testified he heard it first from Russert.

Now Russert denies that (and may have a tape). But anyway-you've got all those admin witnesses saying they gave it to Libby way before he ever met with Miller, Russert, or anyone else.

If it say Libby on the label...it's a prison issued shirt.

[!]

"Not confirming does not equal bad intel."
Fair enough.
Though, isn't the British intelligence report a claim that largely echoes the claim which the CIA acknowledged and caveated as unreliable in Oct. '02? You know, when Bush gave a speech in Ohio (10/02) he wanted to cite the claim and the CIA said: not a good idea, leave that out of the speech.

Or, am I wrong that citing the claim that Hussein attempted to acquire uranium from anywhere in Africa is not echoed in both reports? Does the British findings stipulate that it was not Niger but another country which was selling or potentially selling uranium?

[Gary Maxwell]

it's a prison issued shirt.

Bet me on this one. Two to one odds say he never does a day of jail time. Now I know that washing cars is hard work and you dont make that much but please only in even dollar increments. The math otherwise aint worth the time.

[!]

Pardon me:" Bush gave a speech in Ohio (10/02) he wanted to cite the claim"
Actually, that should be his Nat'l Security Advisors, and/or other advisors, wanted to include it.

[Creepy Dude]

My job is damn tough Maxwell-we have over 31 flavors buttmunch.

I'll bet if you'll pay off if he pleas or gets the charges dismissed for cooperating aginst the boss, and pardons nullify.

[EricH]

"Does the British findings stipulate that it was not Niger but another country which was selling or potentially selling uranium?"

Yes, and no. British intelligence, as cited in the Butler Report (and some folks don't take it as a credible investigation), cites both Niger and the Congo.

The allegation (or various ones) was that Iraq inquired about purchasing or sought to acquire uranium. One of their trade ministers reportedly traveled to two African countries discussing expanded trade.

The Butler Report is here:

Butler Report

Check sections 490-503. The actual intelligence on the attempts is not included; so we can't judge it for ourselves.

EH

[Creepy Dude]

Actually I see he's going with the Steve Martin defense "I forgot"

Ok Maxwell-I'll give you 3-1 there's never a foreperson saying "Not Guilty" and again pardons nullify.

[EricH]

Hmm, links don't work? Or something's acting up?

Here's the Butler Report online.

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

Again, check section 490+

EH

[windansea]

I'll bet if you'll pay off if he pleas or gets the charges dismissed for cooperating aginst the boss, and pardons nullify.

Joe...is that you??

nice backpedaling bro!!

[Creepy Dude]

Hey Lostatsea I'll bet you too.

Just cause Libby's guilty as hell doesn't mean he's going to jail. This country is just too soft for that.

[Cecil Turner]

I refer you to Libby's testimony:

"[A]t that point in time I did not recall . . .

I'd refer to the same testimony, with the emphasis on the first five words. Again, perhaps not credible, but it isn't a claim to the grand jury that he first heard of Plame through reporters. He's referring to his state of mind during a past conversation.

Why does saying his wife sent him on this Mission discredit him?

The point is why he was sent, and whether it was in response to question from the Vice President (and perhaps it was, but the linkage is very thin).

[EricH]

"This country is just too soft for that"

I thought we were in the throes of a neo-fascist, rightwing authoritarian theocracy? A social Darwinian dog-eat-dog hellhole?

You mean we're really like Sweden?

EH

[windansea]

Hey Lostatsea I'll bet you too.

ok...that was funny!

Just cause Libby's guilty as hell doesn't mean he's going to jail. This country is just too soft for that.

OMG...a leftie pronouncing guilt before a trial....what is this country coming too??

[MJW]

Geek, Esq. responds to my question, "Considering the charges are perjury, etc., and not leaking classified informantion, couldn't Libby move to have this section struck as surplusage under FRCP Rule 7(d)?":

Considering that this is a criminal trial instead of a civil one, not bloodly likely.

Whether Geek is right or wrong about its bloodly likeliness, I will point out Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7(d) provides that:

(d) Surplusage. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.

So it certainly applies to criminal, not civil, cases.

I will add that the quoted section is from the Obstruction of Justice count, so I assume the supposed relevence it that it establishes the corrupt purpose behind Libby's alleged misrepresentations; though the connection is never expicitly stated in the indictment.

[MJW]

I probably erred by using FRCP as an abbreviation for "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." It could also -- and probably does -- stand for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If so, I apologize; I was just trying to save some typing. I can't type as fast as JBG.

[windansea]

MJW

I heard the same comment on CNN last nite by Digenova??? (former prosecutor) that the context Fitz gave in press conference and indictment about outing a covert agent etc national security would quite possibly be ruled out by a judge

[pollyusa]

jerry that is the most interesting news of the day.

Here is the entire paragragh and the source for once is not Libby or Rove's lawyer.

Mr. Fitzgerald was spotted Friday morning outside the office of James Sharp, Mr. Bush's personal lawyer. Mr. Bush was interviewed about the case by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what discussions, if any, were taking place between the prosecutor and Mr. Sharp. Mr. Sharp did not return a phone call, and Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment.
NYT 10/29/05

[Rick Ballard]

MJW,

Try typing without thinking.

[Lesley]

Polly, what do you think? Is Fitzgerald going to indict GWB?

[pollyusa]

Lesley,

Not a clue, but it's the first time since Bush was interviewed in 2004 that his lawyer has been mentioned that I know of.

Might have something to do with Rove's continuing legal jeopardy. The WAPO did say Fitz had to resolve issues regarding the new information provided by Rove.

Rove provided new information to Fitzgerald during eleventh-hour negotiations that "gave Fitzgerald pause" about charging Bush's senior strategist, said a source close to Rove. "The prosecutor has to resolve those issues before he decides what to do."

[windansea]

this has legs....Bush is toast

time for a mangorita

[topsecretk9]

So many phrases come to mind with this ignorant paper when they write a story headlined

Time for the Vice President to Explain Himself

um, lets see...pot meet kettle? It's almost sad that the NYT's still consider themselves a respectable authority here. Do they really have know idea people are thinking the same of them?

[topsecretk9]

know = NO

[EricH]

"First time since Bush was interviewed in 2004 that his lawyer has been mentioned that I know of."

There was a report awhile back that says that because Bush is a legal officer or has some type of official legal/law capacity, that if Rove told him inaccuracies (i.e., lies) that Rove could be indicted for making a false statement to an officer.

My wild ass guess is that perhaps it has to do with statements that Rove told Bush re his (Rove's) role in outing/revealing Plame.

I.e., Rove tells Bush, "Mr. President, I never discussed Plame with any reporter."

Rove testifies that he told Cooper about Plame. Therefore Rove told a law officer (Bush) a false statement and would be in trouble much like one would be accused of doing to an FBI agent.

Who knows?

EH

[pollyusa]

EH

Possible. Here is the Waas article on Rove's testimony regarding what he told Bush. The source behind the story who knew the testimony, who knows?

Senior aide Karl Rove denied to President Bush that he engaged in an effort to disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative to discredit her husband's criticism of Iraq policy, say people familiar with Rove's statements in a criminal investigation.

[topsecretk9]

Someone earlier stated Libby was taking the Stev Martin defense, "I forgot"

Well, why not, according to Joe Wilson by definition Libby is allowed to do this...

"..Wilson was later confronted about his misrepresentations. He told investigators from the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have "misspoken." CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Wilson specifically about these obvious discrepancies, citing Pincus's June 12, 2003, Washington Post story. Wilson decided to share the blame. He pointed the finger squarely at Walter Pincus:

Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March. My first public statement on this, in my own words, was on July

...and since Wilson blames at Pincus for lying about his statement, so too can Libby about Russert, no?

[jack risko]

Even though I am a member of the VRWC, I think Libby, and possibly others, engineered a cover-up to move the conslusion of the Plame investigation until after November 2004. I think the fingering of a reporter, Russert, as his source guaranteed an extra year of investigation, since reporters and their employers resist testifying about sources. This theory attributes method to the madness of Libby.

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/10/29/a-libby-cover-up-scenario-that-appears-to-fit-many-of-the-facts/

Thanks,

Jack Risko

[cathyf]

I am disturbed by something in particular. On pg 13 of the indictment, it says:

On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

Now Miller said publicly that her testimony was that she has no such memory. She has a note in her notebook that says "Wife works for Bureau?" but she does not recall why she wrote that. Perhaps Libby told her, perhaps she told Libby, perhaps she just thought it and wrote it down. And she doesn't know why she wrote "bureau" and what "bureau" that might be. The answer to any and all of those questions is that she can guess, and Libby telling her that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA is a plausible guess. And from that, Fitzgerald writes a simple declarative sentence:

On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;

Ok, maybe Miller lied to reporters and told the GJ something else. Or maybe Fitzgerald simply promoted her guess into an unambiguous fact. Kind of makes you wonder if any other of those "unambiguous facts" in the indictment have been similarly promoted.

Also it seems appropriate to note the irony of the presence of such promotion in an indictment for making false statements.

cathy :-)

[pollyusa]

nope..Fitz said in press conf that if everyone had told the truth there would have been no charges
windandsea

Here is what I found the the press conference transcript regarding what would be done if Libby told the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.
FITZGERALD

[Libby Lib]

Hey, I just woke up and there were no gifts under my Fitzmas tree except for a little scooter. Damn!! Maybe next year.

[pollyusa]

cathy

Here is Miller's version of her testimony at the GJ regarding bureau.

I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons

[Lesley]

Cathy, look at that parsing: "I believed" "my impression" -

The following three lines of the Miller quote:
" As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there."

"I wasn't sure" "Maybe it meant" "Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain"

[topsecretk9]

Lesley

I am surprised that Fitz is proceeding. Judy Miller will most likely prove to be the most exploitable witness for the defense. At this point with all her maybes and not sures, defense will use this to demonstrate the in-depth knowledge and games played by the media...that Libby was only keeping straight the various info he was being told by the press...He will admit to being told various aspects that he was aware was classified. When reporters began slipping little bits here and there on there own, he only retailed the things learned from them.