Libby's Motive - Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald Can Help Matt Yglesias

Matt Yglesias and Brendan Nyhan are having an interesting back and forth as to why Libby lied and what it means for his commutation.  Let me volunteer Special Counsel Fitzgerald's help on this plaintive plea from Matt Yglesias:

Bottom-line, I think it's rock solid that Bush abused his power, and until someone can offer a plausible account of what kind of non-criminal conduct Libby is helping to cover-up, I'm not going to be too upset if people assume that what's being covered-up was, in fact, a crime.

Here is Special Counsel Fitzgerald from a 2006 filing (p. 26) in which he tackled the question of motive (but do keep in mind - jurors like motive as part of the narrative but it is not a legal requirement for conviction in a perjury/obstruction trial):

Defendant’s request for discovery to show an absence of motive to lie or conceal his conduct overlooks the fact that even the materials defendant appended to his motion show that in early October 2003 (when defendant first gave his story) there would be great embarrassment to the administration if it became publicly known that defendant had participated in disseminating information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, and defendant would have had every reason to assume he would be fired if his true actions became known.

But if June 2006 seems too long ago, here is Jeralyn Merritt's summary of the prosecution close from the Libby trial (the speaker was Peter Zeidenberg):

Mr. Libby and motive to lie.  He agrees with Wells that people have to have a motive to lie.

Libby knew there was a criminal investigation. He knew the FBI wanted to talk to him about it. Zeidenberg tells them to look at Libby's non-disclosure agreements. He knows that he can't even be negligent about classified information. Zeidenberg plays the video of Scott McClellan.

There's no question Libby has reason to think that at a minimum, he's going to be fired. He went to the VP and said he wanted to be cleared like Karl Rove had been cleared.

He cooked up the story about reporters being the source of his knowledge so that it would make his conduct appear innocuous.

This is a case about lying, not conspiracy or scapegoats. There's no White House or NBC conspiracy. He's here because of his own choices and decisions. He decided to lie to the FB and grand jury.

And here we go from Fitzgerald's "cloud over what the Vice President did" close:

But the thing about it is, when you look back at something that happened, history always looks inevitable. At the time he [Libby] was sitting there with a motive to lie. He had a problem. There was an investigation, got security clearances, going to lose his job, they’re talking about firing people and he planted his feet and told the Vice President, I did not leak to Novak.  I did not leak classified information.

I don't know if that helps, but it looks like the official government speculation.

The gist is that Libby feared loss of security clearances, firing, and embarrassment to the Administration.  As a bonus, let me speculate that Libby was specifically worried that Dick Coronary might be dumped from the 2004 ticket if his role in the Plame debacle was sufficiently awkward.

And do keep in mind - the specific points on which Libby were convicted were pretty tangential to whether he discussed Ms. Plame with Cheney and whether he or Cheney were aware of her classified status.  Consequently there are plenty of modified Libby stories that would clear the points on which he was convicted yet still minimize Cheney's role, if he is ever asked to re-tell his tale. 

Frankly, I await the day when Congress or the courts prepare an impeachment/indictment of Cheney on the word of a convicted perjurer who testified to memory problems (although the commutation serves to increase his possible credibility - would he even get a hearing if his testimony would lead to a reduced sentence?).  But until that day comes, I have Comedy Central.

Comments

[Other Tom]

"And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5 million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

"Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

"The BBC blamed the poor figures on Saturday's good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers.

"Critics said however that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event."

[cathyf]

So, when Novak shows up on July 8th(?) at Armitage's office

Monday, July 7 -- the day after Joe Wilson's NYT op-ed and MTP appearance.

Novak distinctly remembers that he is the one who brought up the question "why Joe Wilson?" and Armitage told him about Valerie as the answer. Which does tend to indicate that while State's pushback on Wilson, centered around the theme of he's a boob who was sent by his wife and her buddies at the CIA, was discussed and formed, it wasn't exactly the highest priority that they had. Sure it was a smear, but it doesn't look like it rises to the level of smear campaign at the state department, even though state did come closest.

[royf]

Seems semileo's link is even better than I imagined.

A record 10 million viewers had watched the concerts in seven continents via Internet video streams — the most simultaneous viewers of any online concert ever, said a press release from the event organizers.

Gee the events organizers said the event was a great success. Now who is going to argue with that.

[cathyf]

...via Internet video streams...

So -- how many do you think were recording it for hacking together parody videos on YouTube? I suppose we'll find out soon enough!

[SlimGuy]

DUmmie FUnnies has the live earth roundup of comment in DU land

[Sara]

Armitage-Woodward was June 13th.

I was going by the dates in Polly's updated date book link, she has the 13th as Kristoff second article and Pincus article with Woodward on the 20th. Are these dates wrong then?

[kim]

The truth will come out if Bush pardons everyone Fitz has leaned on. It's the only way the truth will come out. And it will happen when the Appellate Court declares his appointment unconstitutional.
==================================

[royf]

Slimguy

I just went to the DummieFunnies and that photoshop of the Mighty Goracle is hilarious.

[kim]

Fear and Trembling in Washington, D.C.
=========================

[Sara]

June datebook enteries

July datebook enteries

Polly seems to have her enteries tied to sources, but certain things don't fit with some of the dates posted here. I know this is old old stuff, but now I'm completely confused.

[cathyf]

Sara, I can see several places where the timeline is contradicted by the facts as disclosed at the trial. (Like I think that the Grenier meeting was later. And the note which documents the June 12th discussion was approximate on the date, and approximate in whether it was Cheney or Cathie Martin who told him.)

Also, Polly's calendar refers to the June 20th interview as between Woodward and "Source 2" and then the June 27the Woodward-Libby interview as being with "Source 3" who is Libby. The Woodward-Armitage interview was on June 13th -- is Armitage "Source 1" and we don't know who "Source 2" is? If that's true, I certainly missed it...

[Sara]

cathyf, I wish I had the answers. I am totally confused now, brought on by Novak's statement that Armitage "reached out" to him before the Wilson op-ed. I figured this was just a detail I'd missed since I didn't really tune in to the story that early, but now I can't square too many items. And Polly seems to have brought her calendar up-to-date with trial testimony. Maybe if she is reading here, she'll chime in.

[Sara]

Changing gears for a moment. After reading the Who Runs the CIA?  Outsiders for Hire.  —

does anyone think it possible that Val was performing in the role of supervisor over one of these private hire "civilian" spook shops?

Over the past five years (some say almost a decade), there has been a revolution in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing. Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I'm told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) -- the heart, brains and soul of the CIA -- has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

These firms recruit spies, create non-official cover identities and control the movements of CIA case officers. They also provide case officers and watch officers at crisis centers and regional desk officers who control clandestine operations worldwide. As the Los Angeles Times first reported last October, more than half the workforce in two key CIA stations in the fight against terrorism -- Baghdad and Islamabad, Pakistan -- is made up of industrial contractors, or "green badgers," in CIA parlance.

Intelligence insiders say that entire branches of the NCS have been outsourced to private industry. These branches are still managed by U.S. government employees ("blue badgers") who are accountable to the agency's chain of command. But beneath them, insiders say, is a supervisory structure that's controlled entirely by contractors; in some cases, green badgers are managing green badgers from other corporations.

[clarice]

NO, Sara.
She's far too stupid.

[Sara]

NO, Sara.
She's far too stupid.

LOL. Well then let me ask the question a different way. Anyone think they were running her?

[Cecil Turner]

Polly doesn't have the initial Armitage taped discussion with Woodward (probably because Woodward only provided "mid-June" instead of a date in his article. But we now know that was on June 13th. Dunno who "source 2" is (on the 20th), but since Woodward says in the same article that they never discussed Plame, it'd seem to be unrelated to the case. Woodward spoke to Libby for the first time on the phone on June 23rd. Libby is alleged to've leaked to Miller immediately afterward. I suspect that's exactly what happened.

Powell version:

"I think she works for the CIA..."

what a weasel

Yeah, and looking at the way Armitage leaked to Woodward, it'd appear Novak if anything understated it:

ARMITAGE: It---It's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.

[Sara]

Polly doesn't have the initial Armitage taped discussion with Woodward (probably because Woodward only provided "mid-June" instead of a date in his article. But we now know that was on June 13th. Dunno who "source 2" is (on the 20th), but since Woodward says in the same article that they never discussed Plame, it'd seem to be unrelated to the case. Woodward spoke to Libby for the first time on the phone on June 23rd. Libby is alleged to've leaked to Miller immediately afterward. I suspect that's exactly what happened.

I guess what started me questioning was Novak making it clear in his excerpt that Armitage's leak was anything but inadvertent and that he was using source/reporter speak to try and confirm that it would make it into Novak's column. If the Woodward date moves back to the 13th instead of the 20th as I assumed from the datebook, then it just gets worse and seems to show that both Armitage and Wilson were very actively involved in pushing the story in what seems almost an orchestrated plan.

It was late last night and I did not get any sleep due to a serious family crisis going on in another state with the long distance calls ringing all night long. I was trying not to think about that and maybe I got too far out while trying to keep my mind off of something else.

[Sara]

ah shoot. Off

[Cecil Turner]

If the Woodward date moves back to the 13th instead of the 20th as I assumed from the datebook, then it just gets worse and seems to show that both Armitage and Wilson were very actively involved in pushing the story in what seems almost an orchestrated plan.

It was topical. Rice's Meet the Press ambush was on June 8th, Powell and Rice were defending the intel handling on the 9th (and Sen Roberts said they'd declassify the NIE), the INR memo was written on the 10th, and Armitage leaked on the 13th. (The same day Kristof published White House in Denial.) All the interesting stuff happened before the White House knew what hit 'em. (Hallmark of a good disinformation campaign . . . one thing the Dems excel at.)

[Carol Herman]

Other Tom, @ 10:44 AM

It's not just Powell whose tight with the press corp. You've got James Baker whose made billions on his know-how in leaking, and remaining hidden. Powell's a piker by comparison.

Some day, what will stand out is how the press missed the obvious. This was a circus set up to get the President. Most of Dubya's behaviors have been to stay away from these flames. It still leaves the story, untold.

But not the motivations! The press hate republican victories. But Dubya's not running, again.

IF Guiliani wins? I don't think he'd make the same moves that we've see Dubya doing. I think Guiliani is fearless when it comes to the press. And, I think this may be equally true with Fred Thompson.

There's still too many candidates romping around on stage, though. While up ahead I think there's still room for serious business. Still room for another Fitzmas unravelling. No frogs in the box, though.