Powered by TypePad

« Buried Lede Du Jour | Main | Let's Roll »

April 27, 2006

Comments

boris

Sure, a legitimate investigation into possible crimes should expect truthful testimony under oath. Once it's determined there is no crime, continued investigation that results in self serving implausible (in hindsight) bafflegab being charged as perjury and obstruction is abuse.

topsecretk9

TF

No big. Just rosy cheecked.

Sue

cboldt,

How do you explain Fitzgerald knowing the leaker in February 2004?

cboldt

tomf

But what does that mean?


With regard to the 1291/1292 difference, I was describing various grounds for taking an appeal before the case was concluded. Usually, a case has to be tried to a conclusion before an appeal can be taken. In this case, Libby lost his motion that asserts Fitz's appointment is defective. The question then is "how does team Libby get Walton's motion up for appeal, without going through the trial first?"


I pointed to a lectric law library site (with a cite =:-O) that describes the third prong of 1291 ("to be effectively unreviewable on appeal") as applying for the most part to arguments of immunity. A party with immunity isn't amenable to trial, but if you make them go through the trial anyway, the argument about "why I should go through the trial" is effectively unreviewable - mooted.


The piece I cited goes on to describe justification under 1292 for taking an appeal before the trial is done, where those reasons bottom out on judicial economy, use of minimum amount of judicial resources to get all the cases handled.


And perhaps all of my bloviating just now made things worse (less clear), not better. Such is the nature of online fora.

Squiggler

TS, Porter Goss was very clear ... she gave up classified information that INCLUDED OPERATIONAL DETAILS. Its those operational details that are going to hang her and her friends in the end. Giving up operatonal details is far far more serious than just reporting things that don't sit well ideologically or even ethically.

I've been trying to harp on this point for days to what seems a deaf audience. This is not about giving some goofy corroboration to a reporter on a story, this is giving up methods and sources to our enemies. That's why AJ's piece is so frightening. This is a planned and structured cabal who were passing our secrets to foreign governments and includes the highest levels in our own governement, i.e. Rockefeller, and some very powerful people who are working outside of governement but very closely.

cboldt

sue

How do you explain Fitzgerald knowing the leaker in February 2004?


I haven't studied that specific point. But ... (you knew there was one coming!) ...


There can be more than one leaker. Even if Fitz knew of a source other than Libby, Libby could still be a leaker - even of the same information. There is good reason for this, if you think about it.


And the false statements charges would not be ruled out based on information known as of February 2004 in any event, because Libby gave the "false statements" testimony before February 2004 (specifically, "On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003")

Rocco

TotalFinaElf owned 15% of Cogema in 2001!

http://www.total.com/en/press/press_releases/pr_2001/010627_interest_in_Cogema_to_CEA_Industrie_1320.htm

Sue

cboldt,

Then why is UGO not facing charges? If Libby had told the truth would this have gone away? I'm of the opinion he would have indicted on anything he could find. He bought the conspiracy story to harm a whistleblower.

Rocco

Oops...

http://www.total.com/en/press/press_releases/
pr_2001/010627_interest_in_Cogema_to_CEA_Industrie_1320.htm

cboldt

sue

If Libby had told the truth would this have gone away?


Yes. All of the charges in the indictment depend on Libby's testimony being deliberately untruthful. As for UGO not facing charges, beats me - we have little fact to go on, but I'm of the opinion that one could legally leak "Plame works at the CIA" all day long, and not be subject to criminal penalty for it. Could even lie to reporters, that's legal too. But lying to investigators is, ummm, risky.


He [Fitz] bought the conspiracy story to harm a whistleblower.


He pedaled it that way, as does President Bush. Leaks are per se bad, in this administration. But I'm of the opinion that the strength and weakness of Fitz's argument can be developed without referring to his motives.

clarice

cboldt, yes. the Judge can certify it. And , yes, reading his opinion, I see no reason why we wouldn't. He admits the Appointment Clause is important and at several points makes clear that the law is far from clear on the questions he'd deciding.

As for the perjury and obstruction charges we are in conflct. I think the questions were cague, and he was testifying to his state of mind when he was talking to reporters--that is, he was explaining how he was trying not to make an unauthorized disclosure.
We've been around this countless times on JOM and there is general agreement on this point.
As for obstruction, since in Feb 2004, Fitz knew Libby had nothing to do with it, I fail to see that the claim is worth anything.

Let me put it this way: De Genova, Toensing and I are all three of us former federal prosecutors and all three of us say we'd have never brought this case on these facts.

ordi

OT Does anyone have a link that explains CIA classifcations, NOC, Covert etc. I recently saw someone link to a great explanation but silly me forgot to save the link.

Thanks!

Sue

Clarice,

Where have you seen the questions Libby was asked? I would like to read them.

Sue

cboldt,

I asked would this have gone away? Not would the indictments have gone away. By this, I mean the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. I don't think so. I think Fitz would have found something else to charge.

Barney Frank

The question for a prosecutor is not just does he think a crime occured, but is there sufficient evidence to warrant bringing the full power of the state to bear against an individual, which is no small thing.
As I've stated before I find Libby's testimony pretty rank, but unless Fitzgerald is holding several aces he hasn't shown, this prosecution shows phenomenally poor judgement, regardless of his motives. How is the public's interest being served by prosecuting someone over the minor statements in question here? Cause Fitz got 'sand in his eyes' after he should have known there apparently wasn't an underlying crime?

cboldt

clarice

As for the perjury and obstruction charges we are in conflct. I think the questions were cague, and he was testifying to his state of mind when he was talking to reporters--that is, he was explaining how he was trying not to make an unauthorized disclosure. We've been around this countless times on JOM and there is general agreement on this point.


I'm guessing from context that you mean Libby's testimony fails the materiality test. And if that is what you mean, then yes, we are in disagreement. But I'm satisfied that my defense of my position is as clear and complete as it needs to be - since I don't care if anybody agrees with me, and it doesn't make a whit of difference either way.


De Genova, Toensing and I are all three of us former federal prosecutors and all three of us say we'd have never brought this case on these facts.


diGenova has gone both ways (sort of) on the perjury question - when asked specifically on the Libby case.



DIGENOVA: Well, first of all, I don't agree with some of these Republican folks who have been on television saying perjury is not sufficient here. If he can prove real perjury and an effort to mislead the grand jury, then he should bring indictments. And if that's all he brings, that's still legitimate and worthwhile and, in my opinion, would be worth bringing.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/28/bn.02.html>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/28/bn.02.html


His wife may feel differently on this point. I know she feels the investigation is bogus, based on her belief (which I share) that Plame was not covert. But I have not heard her say that perjury can be excused in a legitimate investigation, if it is later found that prosecution can't proceed because another element of the charge is missing.


And of course, once Fitz learns that a criminal charge on the underlying matter is impossible, he would be violating ethical standards to continue with THAT line of investigation. There is a question of judgement as to what to do with known or suspected lies during the investigation.

Squiggler

Barney ... what is so rank? That's my hang up on this whole thing ... I don't get what Libby is supposed to have done that is so bad. Example please. And if it just that what he said vs. what Cooper said, that doesn't cut it since I see no reason, at this point to give more credence to the word of a reporter over Libby and I doubt you could convince 12 jurors to trust a reporter over anyone else. The media's trust factor is so low it is nearly in single digits.

clarice

cboldt..We three agree on the point that this case should never have gone forward. If there is perjury there is perjury but if it arose in the context of an investigation which had no lawful purpose we would not have proceeded. I want to make that clear.

I do not know all the questions Libby was asked, we have only snippets in the indictment, but the method of the answers suggests he was responding not to a simple question, "When and from whom did you first learn...? But complex meandering things about specific conversations in which he clearly (to me and Rick anyway) seems to be explaining his state of mind when reporters spoke to him about Plame.

I also seem to recall in his early pleadings that he testified that (a) while he may have heard about her position in his official cpacity he had been focused on other things and it didn't register, and (b) it first caught his attention when he heard of it from reporters or from other officials reporting to him about what other reporters said.

Given Woodward's testimony, that timing seems about right.

Barney Frank

Squig,

Well by rank I don't mean necessarily dishonest; I'm becoming somwhat more agnostic on whether Libby was lying or just a doofus. Perhaps a better word would have been nonsensical, foolish, abysmal, take your pick. Fitz may be many of the things he is accused of being, but the fact is Libby either by dishonesty, poor preparation or just plain stupidity handed Mr. Fitzgerald a rope to put around his neck. His testimony apparently, IIRC, not only is contradicted by others but even by his own notes. If that is true then he is an idiot.
Now should someone be prosecuted for being an idiot? No; if so we'd need to start buildng hangman's scaffolding for three quarters of congress. But apparently he either lied or he did not prepare for his testimony properly. The loopy references to 'quaking aspens' in his letter to Miller rather than a straightforward referance to the Aspen institute if that is what he was referring to speaks more to foolishness than dishonesty. Either way he's a dope. Fitz shouldn't prosecute him, but he's still a dope and he's largely in a mess of his own making.

Barney Frank

Clarice,

Libby is reputedly a sharp lawyer and he was represented by other counsel at the GJ as well. If he was being asked langorous disjointed questions why would he not have simply asked for a clearer question? I've been deposed many times and testified more times than I can count. If a lawyer asks me a question like that I ask him to either clarify it or just say I'm not sure or don't remember.
Doesn't mean he oughta be prosecuted for it, but goes to the fact he inexplicably gave Fitz the rope.

cboldt

clarice

cboldt..We three agree on the point that this case should never have gone forward. If there is perjury there is perjury but if it arose in the context of an investigation which had no lawful purpose we would not have proceeded. I want to make that clear.


Heheheh. Well, that was perfectly clear to you, but ambiguous, I think, to a passer by. Is "this case" the investigation Fitz was charged with in the first place? To "find the leaker, and figure if a law was broken." Or is "this case" the perjury case that resulted on belief that one of the witnesses deliberately made a material misstatement?


I hear you when you say that had you been in Fitz's shoes, charged with the investigation, you would have first challenged the CIA to produce evidence that proved the Plame was "covert" under the definition of the criminal statute. That is, you wouldn't have sent investigators to the WH until the CIA provided more than the referral. Fair enough. In fact, I think the result would have been vastly superior to what we have now, if Fitz had done that.


Fitz made the "mistake" of thinking the CIA wouldn't refer a case (Tenet even pushed it) unless they COULD prove that. I put "mistake" in quotes because I think his order of investigation was a predictable reaction, considering human nature. What's he going to do, call Tenet out for making a false report? Better to run an investigation and hope nobody lies. Anyway, that's just my guess.

clarice

Boris--I have no idea. I do know he was working incredible hours on very difficult questions and may well have assumed this was B.S. which didn't require as much preparation as it did.
As for the Aspens thing--when my son was young he referred to very smart impractical people as "smart but stupid" and I know an awful lot of people like that--in fact, almost everyone I know is some combination of shrewd and stupid.And we all have a crazy person lurking under our skin who we have to hope will stay where he/she is and not cause any trouble.*wink*

Walter

cbolt,
In paragraph 26 of the indictment Fitzgerald refers to Libby disclosing that he first heard of Plame's employment from Cheney in his first FBI interview.

Now if, as Fitzgerald would like people to believe from his pleadings, Libby mislead the grand jury about what he knew and when he knew it, I understand the charges.

Here he allegedly lied about (a) conversational details (As I understand your point, the reported discrepancies alone are not that important.) and (b) whether, when he talked to the FBI and testified to the grand jury, he remembered being surprised when reporters told him that Plame was involved because he had forgotten that he had initially learned from Cheney.
Fitzgerald can easily show that he should not have been surprised, as he had been working on the issue for over a month at the time of the conversations.

That is, Fitzgerald can show Libby knew something that he disclosed he knew whenever he was questioned.

Seems like a slam-dunk, except that, as he did not lie about what he knew, where he learned it, or when he knew it, his (easily provable) lie about his state of mind seems, perhaps ... immaterial.

That's where you lose me. Am I missing your point or Fitzgerald's? Help?

sad

Wasn't the "Aspen thing" a reference to the group after him?

clarice

cbnoldt, the CIA did not follow its usual practice in this case of conducting an internal investigation before sending over the referral letter.In his discovery motion, Libby asks for documentation of what DoJ did with it implying they'd sent back to the agency for backup.And I still want to know if McCarthy was "consulting" on this matter.

MayBee

Wasn't the "Aspen thing" a reference to the group after him?

That's what I understand. He talks about them starting to turn and tells her to return to work. He also said in his GJ testimony there's a war between the WH and CIA, and many of the Aspen Group people were players.

Squiggler

Barney -- okay, I hear you. I'm not sure that the opinion you hold of Libby is so far off the mark, but on the other hand, I'm not sure it proves anything either. My Mother was classified as a Super Genius, IQ above 170, but she couldn't find her glasses when they were propped on top of her head and the simplest things you and I take for granted seemed to be beyond her comprehension to explain, mostly because her mind was on so many other things at the same time and going at a million miles a minute. High powered intellects often look like a doofuses to the rest of us "normal" beings. I think that is how the term "absent-minded professor" got coined. And at one time in my long life, I dated one of these types ... he drove me nuts because he was always talking in poetry and most of what he said was so esoteric, nobody could understand a word he said, least of all me. The gist of our conversations was him expounding for several minutes and me saying, "in English, please."

topsecretk9

Porter Goss was very clear ... she gave up classified information that INCLUDED OPERATIONAL DETAILS.

I know, i just haven't seen an Andrea Mitchell style confirmation of the DOJ referral letter. CW was that she was just fired and that was it...this is the first affirmative "I've ever seen, but that's just it, with an AM bombshell leak we don't know.

MayBee

poorly worded. He obviously says nothing about the Aspen Group in his GJ testimony. Just the CIA/WH war.

MayBee

TS- Dafna Linzer said the whole matter had been referred to the DOJ, but you are right- I've not heard anything specifically about McCarthy.

cboldt

walter

Seems like a slam-dunk, except that, as he [Libby] did not lie about what he knew, where he learned it, or when he knew it, his (easily provable) lie about his state of mind seems, perhaps ... immaterial.


The way Fitz presents it, the indictment must stand for the proposition that Libby's testimony had a tendency to lead away from Libby knowing (for a fact) that Plame worked for the CIA. Or said in a slightly different way, that Libby never testified in a way that would cause an investigator to conclude that he knew (for a fact) that Plame worked for the CIA.


Read Libby's words. Is he telling you (the investigator) that he knows Plame works at CIA? What would your natural conclusion be, if you were honestly ignorant, and seeking facts?


The difficulty with the GJ testimony is the result of them having a suspicion that Libby lied to investigators some months before, and they are asking him what he meant when he talked to the investigators.


I agree that the presentation in the indictment is ambiguous in many ways - but if I am reading the indictment correctly (I think I am), my analysis was sharpened by seeking "exactly WHAT is the alleged lie?" And the simplified nub that I come to (and have been criticized for, as being singularly focused or simple minded or something like that) is that Libby tried to hide the fact that he knew Plame worked at the CIA. Well, did he? Try to hide that, I mean. If you hear the evidence, and think he deliberately tried to hide that he knew Plame worked at the CIA (tried to hide that from investigators - not hide it from reporters), then you think he is guilty.

topsecretk9

TS- Dafna Linzer said the whole matter had been referred to the DOJ, but you are right- I've not heard anything specifically about McCarthy.

Now see? That's why I started with a "Did I miss something?"

I DID. Thanks Maybs...rosy to red.

clarice

And if you think he tried to explain to the investigators how he acted when he spoke to the reporters and they raised the question--which I do--then you see it otherwise.

For example "as if for the very first time" is not "for the first time" and considering he told the investigators he'd earlier heard about it officially, the rest seems to me to be nincompoopery.

cboldt

clarice

cbnoldt, the CIA did not follow its usual practice in this case of conducting an internal investigation before sending over the referral letter. In his discovery motion, Libby asks for documentation of what DoJ did with it implying they'd sent back to the agency for backup.And I still want to know if McCarthy was "consulting" on this matter.


Well, we're diverging from the perjury case against Libby, and into CIA conduct. I wholeheartedly agree something is fishy at the CIA, obviously so, if you ask me. Plame is referred, followed up by Tenet due to slow action from the DoJ, where Plame is a desk jocky with no intention for future NOC work, having been outed by Aldridge and Cuba.


In contrast, McCarthy is fired, accused of a pattern of discussing classified information with reporters, but the CIA does not press charges.


Wait, maybe that's it. They go after outsiders, but protect their own. Well, that's part of it. I can see where the CIA (and even the President) may be reluctant to press charges out of legitimate greymail considerations. That doesn't excuse the absence of a referral though.

clarice

Maybe she's cooperating. Maybe they did refer it and just didn't tell Andrea Mitchell they did this time around. Who knows?

Walter

cbolt,
I am hampered a bit by not having served as a prosecutor, on a grand jury, or as a subject of an investigation. On the other hand, I have yet to experience a deposition in a lawsuit about X in which the deponent is not asked "When did you first hear of X?"

From the indictment:

"26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President."

If you read that as saying that Libby twice told the FBI (and subsequently, the grand jury, twice) that he first heard of Plame from Russell, we read it differently. That's OK, the facts will out. If you read it as an implausible statement describing his state of mind, please help me understand how it had "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed."

cboldt

clarice

considering he told the investigators he'd earlier heard about it officially ...


Depending on the timing of telling investigators, that could render the entire indictment to a nullity. The indictment depends on the assertion that Libby did NOT tell investigators (in October/November 2003) that he knew for a fact that Plame worked at/for the CIA. If Libby can show that he did tell investigators (in October/November 2003) and the GJ (in March 2004) that he knew for a fact, when he talked to Miller, Cooper, Russert (in June/July 2003), that he knew THEN (June/July 2003) that Plame worked for the CIA, well, the entire indictment evaporates.


Surely you have a more fact-specific citation for "he told the investigators he'd earlier heard about it officially."

Walter

Darn it.

boris

Just to clarify because the human inclination to extract some coherent pattern in anything is very strong ...

&ltrant>

Libby's testimony is not coherent as a lie. Reading LIE into that mishmash is not reasonable.

Libby's testimony is not coherent as the truth (defined as consistent with reality). Reading TURTH into that mishmash is not reasonable.

The claim that Libby could not plausibly have forgotten about Plame being CIA between the time he learned it officially and the time he "relearned" it from Woodward (or whoever) is hindsight blindness based on (1) the importance that fact came to have later and (2) the assumption that it was part of the admin pushback against Wilsons published falsehoods.

</rant>

boris

Italiacto!

Walter

I blame Marc Andressen.

boris

Emphisadio!

topsecretk9

Jumping in dumb here...

But I have not heard her say that perjury can be excused in a legitimate investigation, if it is later found that prosecution can't proceed because another element of the charge is missing.

I thought I read an op-ed by VT and in it she said that if perjury is the charge in this case, based on the he said/she said, then Cooper is/or should be in as much hot water for his in depth GJ question about Welfare Reform in which he, only after his testimony, revealed he testified falsely.

boris

Surely you have a more fact-specific citation for "he told the investigators he'd earlier heard about it officially."

Pretty sure it was Fitz who said so.

topsecretk9

--Darn it.--

No worries, Walt...bound to happen. Larwyn would kiss your keyboard right about now.

clarice

Well, if this misbegotten case continues..it will in the end come down to who do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt..and again it looks unpromising for Fitz. (Tradesports odds on a conviction on a single count continue to fall--down to 30 roday.)

Walter

TS,
Thanks! We never had that problem in Usenet.

cbolt,

Here's Fitzgerald's (long-winded) explanation in the indictment of the materiality question:

(par 29), "iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;"

He also says it's material whether and when Libby thought Plame's status was classified:
"iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it;", but he seems to have backed off of that point lately.

clarice

OT: What a coincidence!
"DURHAM, N.C. The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke's lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14. Authorities in nearby Creedmoor said Thursday that none of the men named in the decade-old report was ever charged but they didn't have details why. " http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/27/D8H8L3M81.html

MayBee

Tops- don't be too red-faced. I'm not certain it's one and the same.
Ms. Linzer:
--
Princeton, N.J.: Let me point out an interesting fact. When Plame's name was leaked, the CIA went immediately to the Justice Dept. to ask for a criminal investigation. As I understand it, the CIA has not asked for such an investigation in either the prison story or the domestic spying one. Wonder why?

Dafna Linzer: Me too.

_______________________

Dafna Linzer: Just to say more on the two leaks. In the Plame case, the CIA reported the leak to the Justice Department and the Justice Department chose to investigate. The CIA doesn't order up DoJ inquiries. On the prisons story, they also informed the justice department but said they would conduct their own inquiry. The justice department could have its own too but so far, it hasn't.
--
I include the whole thing, because it makes me chuckle.

boris

Fitz claims Libby put the Plame info to the press as solid. In my opinion that is not based on reporter testimony, but on the fact that it wound up in the news as solid info.

That the case didn't fold after UGO means Fitz is either delusional or obsessed.

Rick Ballard

Without a gj transcript or the actual questions asked by the investigators we still wind up at rank speculation. I agree with Walt's speculation concerning what the investigator's would ask but I would also note that Libby had counsel present and that the probability that he and his counsel were prepared for direct questions as Walt presented them approaches 1 - as in 99.999.

The only questions that we have relate to count five in the indictment:

Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters – A. Yes. Q. – plural, were saying. Correct? A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters. . . . . Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was – that's what – that's how I did it.
. . . .
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?

A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report. Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I said to the other reporters is what, you know – I told a couple reporters what other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.

Nary a question that could be construed as being direct (note the beginning 'ands'). Conditional compound questions are presented and there are elisions noted - Fitz is super jim dandy at elision.

Without the elided portions were kind of kidding ourselves.

jerry

I believe that should be "he lied."

cboldt

walter

If you read that [indictment paragraph 26] as saying that Libby twice told the FBI (and subsequently, the grand jury, twice) that he first heard of Plame from Russell, we read it differently. That's OK, the facts will out.


I hold that using a "first heard" standard can take one down a wrong path. It is possible for Libby to first hear rumors, then ask the CIA and learn for a fact, then play in the rumor mill, then tell investigators that he forgot he knew for a fact. The crux is forgetting he knew for a fact. The crux is not where he first heard.


Fitz fleshes our paragraph 26 in paragraphs 32 and 33, where 32 describes Libby's statements as taken by the GJ, and paragraph 33 describes reality as seen by Fitz in hindsight, in light of ALL the evidence.


Paragraph 32.a.ii asserts that Libby told the GJ that he was in fact surprised to hear from Russert that Plame worked for the CIA. In contrast, says paragraph 33, he knew damn well (when he was talking to Russert) that Plame worked at the CIA. He knew damn well for a fact because he'd been told by Cheney and a CIA briefer, etc. It matters not whether he told Russert or not - the question is, "Did he KNOW?".


Paragraph 26.a. describes the testimony of Libby, as taken (interpreted) by investigators. Paragraph 26 recapitulates Libby's statements to investigators, and is meant to convey that investigators (if they believe Libby) would conclude that Libby was in fact surprised when told by Russert that Plame worked at the CIA. Further, the investigators admit, Libby told them that he HAD previously learned (from Cheney), but forgot (when speaking to Russert - hence the surprise) that he knew Plame worked at the CIA.


Taken as a whole, that testimony of Libby would lead an investigator to conclude that Libby was NOT a leaker of the FACT that Plame worked at the CIA, after all (says he), he "forgot" that he knew it for a fact, so he testified.


I suspect you've played in rumor mills. I have. Drop the story at point A and deny it to everybody else. For an investigator, the question to figure out if you were possibly the source of a leak is "did you KNOW?" not "Who did you tell the truth to, and who did you lie to?"

jerry

Flash! Porter Goss in hospitality suites with Cunningham's buddies? Holy hamwich Batman:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000494.php

Squiggler

Perhaps Libby's long-winded and rather meandering replies are a refelection of the long-winded and meandering style of the questioner. I find Fitz to be near impossible to follow. Half the time I have to read his words over and over to dicipher what at first glance seems gibberish. I hope this isn't a case of Libby being cute by half and having a bit of diabolical fun at the prosecutor's expense during the hearing and now paying for it. Now that would make him Stooooooopid in my eyes.

windansea

Ayn Rand's most ambitious novel may finally be brought to the bigscreen after years of false starts.
Lionsgate has picked up worldwide distribution rights to "Atlas Shrugged" from Howard and Karen Baldwin ("Ray"), who will produce with John Aglialoro.

As for stars, book provides an ideal role for an actress in lead character Dagny Taggart, so it's not a stretch to assume Rand enthusiast Angelina Jolie's name has been brought up. Brad Pitt, also a fan, is rumored to be among the names suggested for lead male character John Galt.

another sign that we are all doomed...

clarice

cboldt, before Libby first testified before the gj, Fitz knew he was not the source of the Novak story.

MayBee

Rick Ballard- woah. Is there an English-language copy of that Q&A?

My golly...

cboldt


walter

He also says it's material whether and when Libby thought Plame's status was classified: "iv. LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was classified at the time he disclosed it;", but he seems to have backed off of that point lately.


Yes, during the investigation into violation of out the covert agent act, the knowledge of the leaker that the leak is of classified information is material. In other words, if Libby was being prosecuted for a leak, then evidence as to his knowledge of the classified nature of what he was disclosing is necessary to make THAT case.


And, since we are now in a perjury/false statements case, the question of whether or not Libby knew Plame's status was a classified matter becomes irrelevant. The question isn't "Did he knowing out a covert agent," the question is, "Did he knowingly mislead/lie to investigators?"


At any rate, I think my previous as to the question of materiality in the perjury case stands (or falls) okay on its own.

MayBee

Drop the story at point A and deny it to everybody else. For an investigator, the question to figure out if you were possibly the source of a leak is "did you KNOW?"

This is obviously what Fitzgerald was going for. But he got point A wrong, as we know from Woodward (at a minimum). He limited his investigation too much to actually discover what point A might have been.

cboldt

clarice

cboldt, before Libby first testified before the gj, Fitz knew he was not the source of the Novak story.


Without challenging the veracity of that, I addressed it above and won't clutter the thread with repetition.

Walter

cbolt,

Still trying to flesh out where we read the allegations differently...But I appreciate your effort.

Let me try it this way: (a) Libby says to Grand Jury "I know that I knew earlier that Plame was involved. I remember that, when I talked to Russell, for some reason, I didn't think I knew it during that conversation." or (b) Libby says to Grand Jury "You know, I just don't remember hearing about Plame before Russell. That's why I was so surprised when I heard it."

Is (a) still a problem for you? I'll agree that (b) seems like grounds for the perjury charge based on what we know now.

Syl

Let's play pretend:

Pretend Libby was a busy man with very important matters that took up 20 hours of every day.

Pretend that getting information from the NIE out there to counter Wilson was one of several matters he was involved in.

Pretend that informing the public that the CIA had sent Wilson, not Cheney, was also one of several matters he was involved in.

Pretend that Cheney, or someone, had told him Mrs Wilson was CIA.

Pretend that identifying anyone as CIA is handled as radioactive so unless you research it you keep mum. (This is true.) That fact didn't really add anything to the Wilson story, so you bury it in your head. More important stuff to deal with.

Pretend that you were told that reporter(s) were saying Wilson's wife worked at CIA.

Pretend a reporter actually said it to you, you're just not sure who or when. It's not one of the more important details you're working on so you shrug it off.

(The transcript we were going thru yesterday had Libby's lawyers saying Libby has actually remembered another reporter who told him...I think I saw that.)

So, if a reporter tells you wilson's wife works at CIA, you either pretend ignorance or you react as if it's gossip. You don't want to officially confirm.

You may even have a vague notion you already knew it but being so busy you might have momentary doubts.

But you are sure you know that gossip about it is going around.

Now read Libby's testimony again. I see no lies at all.

clarice

That's how I see it Syl.

cboldt

MayBee

This is obviously what Fitzgerald was going for. But he got point A wrong, as we know from Woodward (at a minimum). He limited his investigation too much to actually discover what point A might have been.


Aye. But to the investigation, that detail doesn't make perjury go away. The question isn't necessarily (but it was phrased this way by Fitz) "Was Libby the person who dropped the rumor at Point A?" The question is "COULD Libby have been a source?"


The indictment reads as though Libby wanted investigators to conclude that he could not have possibly been a source.


The investigator wants to know the entire population of possible leakers. And in the real world, there is a chance of multiple "Points A", and even multiple leakers.

larwyn

Thank you Walt!

Squiggler,
Mac's post confirmed a lot of what is in the Douglas Hanson, National Security beat at American Thinker:
The Yellowcake Connection

Clarice excerpted it early and I put in a hot link. Lots of inportant info.
---------------------------
Mac has the transcript from the Press Corps CNN coup on Airfore One. The quotes from the Q are striking in their 5th grade verbiage - not what you would expect from the elite well educated brilliant intellectuals of the White House Press corps.

Mustn't have been John Roberts, no
reference to "sloppy seconds".

White House primadona corps complaining about their perception that the White House TV's are tuned constantly to Fox News.

Via Michelle here is the transcript.

"Q It's come to my attention that there's been requests -- this is a serious question -- to turn these TVs onto a station other than Fox, and that those have been denied. My question would be, is there a White House policy that all government TVs have to be tuned to Fox?

MR. McCLELLAN: Never heard of any such thing. My TVs are on four
different channels at all times.

Q Because you have four different TVs. But every time I've ever been --

MR. McCLELLAN: Every TV in the White House also has channels every --
has a split screen, where they can --

Q Well, they always seem to be tuned to Fox, and there's been requests,
and these are paid for by taxpayer dollars. And my understanding is that
you guys have to watch Fox on Air Force One. Is that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: First time I've ever heard of it. First time you've
brought it to my attention, meaning the first time the press corps has
brought it to my attention. In fact, I've watched other channels on here.

Q There's one --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, Jim, come on. I've watched other channels on
here, so I don't know where you're hearing that. But it's the first time
anyone in the press has raised that question with me.

Q You've watched other channels other than Fox?

MR. McCLELLAN: On here, yes, sure.

Q I've never seen -- they're always turned to Fox, which a lot of people
consider a Republican-leaning network.

Q Scott, is it one -- on the airplane, is it one for all? I mean, if
it's tuned for Fox here, is it Fox everywhere?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that certain areas may be interconnected, but
I'll have to double-check which.

Q Is yours off, wherever you are?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the conference room, or the senior staff office,
the staff office, they're different TVs, and you can switch to different
channels. I'm not sure if some of these in the back are connected to
some of the others that are watching right here, right now. It doesn't
look like it to me. I've never known anyone that's raised a complaint
about a request from back here to watch a different channel.

Q I'm officially raising it and officially complaining about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm going to go see if we can change the channel
for you. Have you called up?

Q I was the Fox victim, and I was told -- the quote was, "No," when I
asked for CNN.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know who you talked to, so -- it didn't come to
my attention. You don't know who you talked to either?

Q Well, the magic people at the other end off the phone.

MR. McCLELLAN: The magic people at the other end of the phone. Well,
I'll see if this cabin is --

Q I was told, "We don't watch CNN here, you can only watch Fox."

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it's hard to respond to something when I don't
know who it is you talked to.

There is actually more at Mac's.
The "magic people"??

FOX victim??

I think Fox should use this:
"The network the White House Press Corp doesn't want you to see."

GO TONY!

And the White House Correspondants Dinner should be a great one.
CSPAN usually carries live with coverage of arrivals.

cboldt

walter

Is (a) still a problem for you? I'll agree that (b) seems like grounds for the perjury
charge based on what we know now.


Your scenario or interpretation (a) has never presented or supported a false statements or perjury charge, as far as I'm concerned. He's being honest with investigators in that read. The totality of the indictment is that Libby tried to steer investigators away from Libby knowing, for a fact (when he spoke with Cooper, Miller, Russert), that Plame worked for the CIA. If the indictment is read as though Libby told investigators that Libby DID know for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA (it expressly says otherwise, BTW), then the indictment evaporates.

Syl

Larwyn

My suggestion for the Press Corps is the Cartoon Network.

Walter

cbolt,

I am enjoying this discussion, so please don't take this as piling on, but I'd like to come back to one of your responses:

"Yes, during the investigation into violation of out the covert agent act, the knowledge of the leaker that the leak is of classified information is material. In other words, if Libby was being prosecuted for a leak, then evidence as to his knowledge of the classified nature of what he was disclosing is necessary to make THAT case.

And, since we are now in a perjury/false statements case, the question of whether or not Libby knew Plame's status was a classified matter becomes irrelevant."

Why did Fitzgerald include paragraph 29(iii.) in the indictment if it is irrelevant to the charge and he intends to neither offer proof for the assertion nor let the defendant rebut the point at trial?

Squiggler

You may even have a vague notion you already knew it but being so busy you might have momentary doubts.

But you are sure you know that gossip about it is going around.

Now read Libby's testimony again. I see no lies at all.

I agree with both you, Syl, and Clarice.

One of the first words of advice when I went to work in Washington was -- learn to compartmentalize -- I was cautioned over and over by my boss not to take what I heard in one meeting with me to the next. It is a skill some come by naturally, others have to learn and some never do. It becomes even harder when you are in a position where you are constantly bombarded by information seekers, such as reporters. I don't think anyone who has not experienced both the fishbowl aspect of D.C. and the cut throat aspects of working there can truly appreciate what the atmosphere is like. I know I'm projecting, but I have to assume if I, in my lowly little position, lived the stresses outlined by the Libby team, then I have to apply multipliers in the 1000s to apply my experience to the VP's office and Libby's job.

Rick Ballard

MayBee,

No translations are available. It's an unknown language. It's a help in understanding how prosecutors can bring in an indictment on Mr. Hamon Rye (of the Poland China crime family).

I'd lke to hear a grand jurors interpretation of questions and answers and what the hell they thought the indictment was all about.

Walter

cbolt,

Sorry. par 29(iv.)

Syl

Squiggler

Yes! Compartmentalize! It's great to have you and your experience here.

Walter

cbolt,

"It expressly says otherwise, BTW"

This is where you can turn me around. I see the indictment implying (fiercely) otherwise, but no direct statement.

Syl

Rick

I'd lke to hear a grand jurors interpretation of questions and answers and what the hell they thought the indictment was all about.

Reread the transcript we were going over last night. When fitz is arguing burden on getting documents to cover time period gaps listen to the rant re what Libby knew when so Libby lied when etc. I'm sure that's the manner it was all summed up nice and neatly for the GJ.

cboldt

walter

I am enjoying this discussion, so please don't take this as piling on ... Why did Fitzgerald include paragraph 29(iii.) in the indictment if it is irrelevant to the charge and he intends to neither offer proof for the assertion nor let the defendant rebut the point at trial?


You aren't piling on. You are reading my responses and asking relevant questions. And I too am enjoying our exchange, and thank you.


As for the presence of that particular phrase, it's as superfluous as the entirety of paragraph 27 (picking one at random) and the bulk of the introductory stuff. It's factually accurate, and presents a fairly complete picture of what lead up to the indictment - but not everything in the background is NECESSARY to make the indictment. A good part of the material justifies the investigation, and expresses what was material to what was a leak investigation.

topsecretk9

BTW

If any of you live in California and were thinking of making a big purchase or your grocery day is usually tuesday or wednesday...buy like the dickens on Monday.

Really, I am CA to the bone ( on my dads side my grandfather was an emigrant who embraced this country, only went to school till the 8th grade, read by candlelight ON A CHAIR, and became CHIEF ENGINEER of a salt plant in the Bay Area by earning a correspondence degree at night) and I am sickened to the bone they are using the national anthem IN SPANISH as their theme song.

Rick Ballard

"I am sickened to the bone"

You're supposed to be - this is all a BS backlash show contrived by the Commie fronts. Silence will be golden as a response.

That and voting Rep as often as you can come Nov. 7.

cboldt

walter

cboldt sez: "If the indictment is read as though Libby told investigators that Libby DID know for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA (it expressly says otherwise, BTW), then the indictment evaporates."


The indictment sez (picking count 2):



4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003: ...


b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA


Now, without trying the case, but merely recapitulating the proposition the indictment stands for, the indictment stands for the proposition that Libby made a false statement, where a significant part of the falsity is that Libby was well aware, when he spoke with Russert, that Plame worked at the CIA.


The indictment charges that Libby lead investigators away from this. I think to read the indictment as contradicting itself is, ummmm, straining. Fitz is attempting to MAKE his case, not break it.

Walter

cbolt or Clarice,

Doesn't the jury get to take the indictment with them during deliberations?
OT: I am now in a fact-pleading state, and I just had a client throw out the other side's pleadings for missing an element. (5-year statute, so they can refile...more money for the lawyers on both sides).

I have always thought that, if it is irrelevant, inflamatory, or unprovable, it could (and should) be struck. If it remains, it must be supported and may be challenged. Is the rule different generally in criminal cases? Federal criminal cases? Feel free to just pass me on to the proper rule.

Gary Maxwell

OT

A report is now out by local affiliate ABC in Raleigh that says the accuser in the rape case is one of the most abused people on the planet. It seems she filed a report 10 years ago alledging rape. Get this by three men. No charges ever filed.

MayBee

You know, if she was raped before God Bless her. Maybe that she got no justice then has some bearing on her current accusations.

clarice

Walter, I agree with you , nothing irrelevant should be in the indictment and this ireelevancy was clearly put there for a purpose:to poison the jury pool and induce the media to report this--as it generally has--falsely, as punishment for leaking classified information. A theme Fitz continued in his presser.

I do not know if the indictment goes into the jury room. It may well, as an exhibit in the case. If it does and this "ireelevancy" isn't struck it will mislead the jury as well.

Gary Maxwell

Oh yeah Jeralyn Miller is reporting she was treated for a nervous breakdown last year. Could there be a weaker case than this?

Syl

cboldt

Taken as a whole, that testimony of Libby would lead an investigator to conclude that Libby was NOT a leaker of the FACT that Plame worked at the CIA, after all (says he), he "forgot" that he knew it for a fact, so he testified.

It doesn't matter what Libby KNEW when he spoke to Russert. It doesn't matter if he forgot the FACT. A person cleared for this type of information, as Libby was, treats the info in the exact same manner either way. This is not the distance a missile travels, nor the frequency range of a sonar.

CIA employment is special kind of classification.

This is the confirmation of employement by CIA of a specific person. And if Libby doesn't know for a FACT that she is classified, or whether it's true she works there, or if he does know, it is not divulged or confirmed unless one knows it is NOT classified.

And Libby knows damn well that one does not confirm gossip about classified info. That is the same as divulging it. And even if he DIDN'T know this info was classified, he knows there's a chance it is.

'I heard that too' and all the bafflegab about not confirming it which has confused Fitz and others so utterly is simply Libby doing his damn job.

clarice

What, Gary?

clarice

Oh, Gary you're talking about the Duke case?
No, there couldn't. Yesterday the girl's father said she was sodomized by a broomstrick and the chattering class said that explained the absence of DNA. Today it turns out that the search warrant never listed a broom.

Maybe we ought to give an award for really awful prosecutors..The Ronnie Earle.

Squiggler

TS -- my daughter-in-law manages a string of 3 privately owned dry cleaners. The owners are Korean. My d-i-l is the only "white" employee. She was informed today, by the owners, that on Monday, she will be the only employee on duty because all the rest will be participating in the work strike. When asked if she, as the manager, had the right to fire anyone who didn't show up, the answer was a resounding "no!" When she asked if she could then take Tuesday off as her day of strike, the answer was, "not if you want to keep your job." Needless to say, she is one unhappy camper about her employer and her employment. I am furious.

Gary -- the victim was only 14 when the other rape occurred and after and she was treated for trauma that required both hospitalization and medicaton. She did not report it until 18 because her mother and family were afraid of what the father would do if he found out -- not to her, but to the perps. Apparently the father is volatile but quite a small man at 120 lbs. The mother was scared for his safety. So, she did not report it until she was no longer a minor.

Anyway, I don't care what is in her past, it doesn't change the fact that anyone can be raped at anytime, even by a husband or boyfriend. Besides, the news media made up their minds to support the "poor" rich frat boy jocks over the lowly exotic dancer with a past and they are sticking to it. The whole thing makes me sick all over.

I hope they hang these guys by the cajones and I wouldn't mind a broom handle being used on them either. Scum, all of them.

MayBee

cd: Taken as a whole, that testimony of Libby would lead an investigator to conclude that Libby was NOT a leaker of the FACT that Plame worked at the CIA, after all (says he), he "forgot" that he knew it for a fact, so he testified.
---

Right, and I understand that Fitz is trying to make the case.
What I'm not clear on is whether it is perjury if Libby did think he was NOT a leaker of the FACT that Plame worked at the CIA.

If he knew that he hadn't told anyone, and then someone (a reporter) mentioned it to him- it wouldn't be misleading investigators to indicate that he hadn't started the leak.

Now, I can't cut through the exact words to know if Libby precisely what Libby was doing or saying, and it is certainly possible that he lied.

MY problem with the case is that Libby was not alone in "recalling" facts that didn't pan out to investigators. Not even among the people who's testimony is being used to impeach his.
It is the inequity that bothers me.

clarice

Squiggler, if there was no broomstick in the search warrant, the story is (a) likely not one she reported to the police, and (b) unlikely to be true. Now, either she didn't tell her father the truth , didn't tell the police the truth or her father is a liar.

Kate

Ronnie Earle may be a horrible prosecutor, but he's a very effective political operative.

He not only deprived Tom Delay of his leadership role but ultimately his house seat.

I'm not particularly a Delay fan, but the Democratic trick of criminalizing their political enemies has been very effective.

And it looks to continue. Rove was not paricularly good as a policy guy, in fact, I could argue, he was disaster. However, his strength is national elections. He knows which congressman, Senator to support. He's great at it and the pending indictment will remove him at a critical time.

cboldt

Syl

'I heard that too' and all the bafflegab about not confirming it which has confused Fitz and others so utterly is simply Libby doing his damn job.


I support lying to reporters. Fitz might support that too, for all I know. At any rate, my point is only that Libby has been charged with misleading investigators as to whether or not he knew Plame worked at the CIA. That's the charge the indictment means to hand down, even if it does a crappy job of handing. And by the time Libby is giving testimony to investigators and the GJ, the kitty is out of the bag. There is no risk in re-outing. Fear of outing is no excuse to lie to investigators. Well, speaking only for myself. Others may hold differently.

larwyn

She was hospitalized a year or so ago for "nervous breakdown" from money troubles.

Is it possible that it really happened when she was 14 and she can use those memories to give detailed testimony?

Are the "money troubles" why she just happened to pick the two most affluent members of the team?

Could it have been drugs and a "gang of men" upset with the strippers performance that brought on the "flash back" of the 3 men rape?

So in her mind she is telling the truth?

All possible. She has been hospitalized more than once.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is WaPo Jim on Air Force One.
----------------------------------
Could the FALCON II roundup of over 9000 criminals,
1100+ sex offenders be AG Gonzales warning to the LEAKERS?
FAL stand for Federal and Local.
----------------------------------
And Gerard's has another classic:
Be Very Afraid: Avian Bush Derangement Syndrome Outbreak

"I try to become more cynical every day, but lately I just can't keep up."

LIKE A FLU-FLUSHED CANARY IN A COAL MINE, I try to stay on top of new outbreaks of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDR), but lately the onslaught is taking on tsunamic proportions. More alarming still is that the average number of BDR-associated exclamation marks, even in garden variety Bush Derangement Syndrome frothing, is increasing. As we all know, the more exclamation marks, the deeper the derangement. Last year the word Bush was represented by those afflicted by BDR as "Bush!!!" This year the usage has become "Bush !!!!!!!" This is a full 125% increase in froth!!!!!!!

This is not a good sign. It is not a good sign for the mean mental health of our Republic because it usually means that the epidemic of BDR has moved from the relatively benign state of "Bush!!! -- he so dumb." to the more debilitating state of "Bush !!!!!!! -- "Evol-sooper-genius with many mini-me's who do -- Oh, yes indeedy-do they do!!!!!!! -- rule ze world und control ze weather!!!!!!!"

Now the newest symptom to present itself in classic Bush Derangement Syndrome is, wait for it, "Bush and Cronies [Especially Rumsfeld!!!!!!!] are behind Bird Flu!!!!!!!"

My email this morning brings me the following gang-forward from a well-meaning friend. In whole and in part, the email is a classic example of how the deadly virus of Bush Derangement Syndrome can take over a susceptible human brain stem and reduce it to rice pudding.

Note the Ginsbergian Howlish use of "Do you know?" The repeated use of "Do you know?" is of course a device that should signal most people that you are about to be deluged with a New York Deli sized Truth and Bullshit sandwich in which small slivers of truth are served up between super-sized slices of Bullshit.

This particular net virus "reveals" how "....we end up paying for medicine [Tamiflu] while Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush do the business," .....

Take a break and get some laughs
at Vanderleun's.
_________________________________

On topic:
My concern is that they know it is going to hit the fan.

Will Fitz try to help out with many news' cycles by some technical indictment of Rove?

Or will he realize which way the wind is blowing and turn this back on them, Joe Wilson, Val and the real leakers as the only way to save himself.

He's going to look pretty ridiculous when Gonzales does his
"real" roundup. FALCON II may just have been a practice round.


Walter

cbolt,

I don't view (a) as incompatible with 2.4.

Fitzgerald can (and probably will) show that Libby *should have* known, when talking to Russert (sorry about misspellings above) that he knew about Plame. The trial will show whether he did know.

I read your point now as: Intent and knowledge are elements of some crimes which could be implicated in the investigation. Self-serving statements about state of mind and intent are therefore material. If intentionally erroneous at the time they are made, they are themselves criminal acts.

I need to read some cases before I opine, but I think I understand your approach.

I still think Libby knew about Plame prior to Russert and told the FBI and grand jury so, but that is for another day. It looks as though we await the release of additional grand jury testimony for additional revelations. Same Bat-Time, Same Bat-Channel.

larwyn

I have recaptured the "misstagged
miscreant label

Kate

Ah, WAPO Jim. Friend to that brilliant reporter David Shuster(and what is David Shuster anyhow, is he like the moonbat Geraldo? Is he considered a real reporter, or does he just hang out with Matthews and Olberman or does he do NBC, too?), Chris Matthews and other notables.

Syl

cboldt

What is Libby's motive for lying? He is not to officially confirm or deny knowledge of anyone's CIA emmployment unless he already knows for a fact it is NOT classified.

The matter of CIA employment is radioactive no matter who it refers to or where the info comes from. It is no defense to confirm gossip about CIA employment. So, again, what was his motive to 'lie' to investigators?

MJW

Cboldt, Plame's classified status is apparently immaterial to a charge of perjury for the defense, but not the prosecution. Here is one of severla similar comments Fitzgerald made in court:

MR. FITZGERALD: We would never intend to put in actual damage. Our only view would be the materiality of the perjury is that, you know, it's a serious matter if he lied about whether or not he talked about a CIA employee's association and we believe that there will be evidence at the trial that at times he talked about it with other people as if he couldn't talk about it on an open telephone line or told someone else it was hush hush or QT.

So we will argue that he knew or should have known it was classified and that he was being investigated for disclosing classified information. We will argue that he committed the crime of lying. But we are not going to argue and say, tell us Valerie Wilson's life history. Tell us what actually happened.

(As I've previously mentioned the "open telephone" comment is somewhat dishonest, since the indictment only claims Libby was discussing Wilson's trip, without any reference to Plame.)

cboldt

MayBee

What I'm not clear on is whether it is
perjury if Libby did think he was NOT a leaker of the FACT that
Plame worked at the CIA.

There is NO perjury under this indictment if -- at the time he
talked to Russert, Miller, Cooper -- Libby had no conscious
awareness of the fact that Plame worked at the CIA.

He's charged with lying about his knowledge that Plame worked for
the CIA. If he can convince investigators that he had no
consciousness that Plame worked at the CIA when he was talking
with Miller, Cooper, Russert, then investigators will conclude
that he cannot possibly be a leaker.

He's charged with trying to lead investigators to the conclusion
that he could NOT possibly be a person who could provide an
authoritative leak.

topsecretk9

Squig

I am furious. me too.

DUKE

I know I am a lone warrior here, but i really think she was embarrassed/worried when the cop showed up that she was so plastered.

I know the past does not speak for the future, but I have a hard time wrapping myself around being gang -raped previously but too scared to let dad know because of what he might do...then what does she do for work?

Strips for men --not exactly a first choice/trust job for someone gang raped-- and --not exactly a job choice for a Dad you were afraid of telling you were gang raped.

Good people are raped and not believed, That's bad. Doesn't mean every accuser is to be believed absent a whole lot of evidence, the kind of evidence that's used to spring falsely accused out of jail.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame