Verdict in Libby Trial in....reading at noon. (Guilty On 4 of 5 Charges)

MSNBC

[Dog]

Breaking on MSNBC

[lugsoul]

For the sake of accuracy - he didn't initially tell the FBI he learned it from Cheney. He told them that after the note surfaced. Then he changed his story to the VP told me, but I forgot and when I talked to Russert more than a month later I was surprised. The part he left out of that is talking with the two CIA guys, Grossman, Martin, Fleischer, Miller, Addington etc.

I still maintain that if he had followed what Rove did and gradually came clean as more facts came out, he wouldn't have been prosecuted. But he stuck with a story that frankly isn't that credible. There isn't a poster on this board that would believe that story from a Democratic senior White House official.

[lugsoul]

That is a remarkable stretch of the truth. Mitchell's 'mispeak' was reporters knew - she did not say that Wilson told HER.

[Liberty Valance]

Who needs dialog when you've got a sympathetic photo?

[Della Street]

Um, he brought the note with him to his first FBI interview and told them within the first 15 minutes of his first meeting about it.

[oceanview]

well, who told her? before any of this story about Niger broke and Armitage "chatted" up her name, who would even care to mention it - other then her husband.

[EDINVA]

just because someone works at the WaPo doesn't necessarily mean they're liberal (tho it is more likely than not)... some of the most biting anti-Clinton jokes I get come from an old college buddy who works at the NYT .. go figure.

I haven't followed the Libby case as closely as many, but the whole thing makes me sick ... and to think the US has the best judicial system in the world .... if that's the case, I don't want to imagine what the others are like.

[Valin]

Best of the Web Today - March 6, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO


The Libby Travesty
We won't gainsay the jury's verdict in the Scooter Libby trial--"guilty" on four of five counts on perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle. Life is too short to immerse oneself in the tedious details of the case. (If you're interested in Libby minutiae, we recommend Tom Maguire.) But it remains a travesty that Libby was ever prosecuted to begin with.

This was a political show trial, and partisans of Joe Wilson will use the guilty verdict to declare vindication. But along the way we learned that virtually all the claims Wilson and his supporters made were false:

On his trip to Niger, Wilson found no evidence that contradicted the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, contrary to his New York Times op-ed claim.


Plame, his wife, who worked for the CIA, did recommend him for the Niger junket, contrary to Wilson's denials.


Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.


No one from the White House "leaked" Plame's identity as a CIA functionary to Robert Novak, who received the information from Richard Armitage at the State Department.
Libby stands convicted of lying in the course of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle--but that investigation was undertaken on the basis of a tissue of lies. When Fitzgerald began the case, in 2003, no one had committed any crime in connection with the kerfuffle, and that was fairly easy to ascertain, given that Plame was not a covert agent and Armitage had already owned up to the so-called leak. Fitzgerald looks like an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter.

Of course, Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.

---

we recommend Tom Maguire

March 06, 2007
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/from_the_jurors.html

From The Juror's Mouth...
Denis Collins, former journalist and an author of a book on the history of spying: "The primary thing which convinced us on most of the accounts was the conversation... the alleged conversation... with Tim Russert...," he said.

TIME tells it a bit more usefully:

During the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity, Libby told the grand jury he heard about Plame being a CIA officer from NBC's Tim Russert. Libby testified that he recalled being "surprised" at the news during his conversation with Russert. The jury, looking at their compilation of facts posted on the wall, were convinced Libby already knew about Plame at that point. Denis Collins, 57, a novelist and former journalist who served on the jury, said this discrepancy persuaded them that Libby had perjured himself.

Well. As to the Russert conversation, possible doubt-inducing explanations include the following:

1. Libby was sincere but mistaken, and had the breakthrough phone call with another reporter, possibly Bob Novak on the 9th.

2. Russert was sincere but mistaken - the gist of his story was that he could not remember the Libby call on the 10th or 11th, but since he remembers learning about Plame in the Novak column (published on the 14th) he could not have mentioned her to Libby.

Fine, but... the Novak column hit the news wires on the morning of the 11th. Since Russert's story is undated, maybe an NBC producer slipped him an embargoed copy of the column for his perusal on the 11th. Impossible? Worth checking? How come no one has?

3. Russert is, hmm, misremembering in order to conceal sources. David Gregory received a leak on the morning of the 11th, according to the memory-challenged Ari Fleischer. Or perhaps Andrea Mitchell had received a Plame leak from a source whom she and Russert would prefer to protect.

All that said, if the jury focused on Libby's surprise rather than the fact of the conversation, believing Russert is not an issue. Since that was essentially my prediction, I can't get as exercised as I would like. My earlier guess:

As to the rest, the jury could (and IMHO, ought to) have reasonable doubt as to whether Libby sincerely believes (or actually) did hear about Ms. Plame from Tim Russert. However, they might not also believe that the Plame news surprised him - in other words, they might reject the "I Forgot" part of Libby's story. That would result in convictions on counts 1, 2, and 4, depending on how the jury interprets any "materiality" qualifications in the jury instructions.

I still want to hear from David Gregory, just for starters. Eventually, someone ought to grill some NBC producers and see whether they might have had access to the Novak column on the 11th, either directly or from a contact in the news biz. Had Fitzgerald been running a serious leak investigation (or even a serious perjury investigation) he would have done this himself just to pin down a loose end and maybe avoid a serious mistake. Oh, but then he couldn't have indicted Libby as a way-station on the road to Dick Cheney - my bad.

Or, if NBC News had investigative journalists and an interest in the truth, they would examine this themselves. Never happen. Clearly, protecting Tim "The Franchise" Russert trumps other considerations.

Posted by Tom Maguire on March 06, 2007 | Permalink

[jddqr]

I'm so absolutely disgusted by the travesty of justice done today. If something like this could happen, I could never advise any young person to consider going into politics. It's just too dangerous. In fact, I couldn't even advise going into traditionally neutral disciplines like science, which are being distorted by the falsehoods of global warming. What is happening to this country???

[PhatHead]

I don't recall a single proffer of a witness to show that anyone other than SAOs told reporters about Plame's wife.

I haven't been as immersed in the trial's details as some here, but I do recall quite a bit of argument over the defense's request to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness, since she stated on television that Plame's CIA employment was "widely known" in the press corps. I believe the judge in the end did not allow it. Just as he didn't allow any discussion of what Plame's actual status was.

[conservative in nyc]

And if it were proven that Joe Wilson told a bunch of reporters about Plame, then that would help bolster Libby's testimony that this is where he learned it.

Would it really, if those reporters weren't named Cooper or Russert? Would the judge have even allowed the testimony that some other reporters knew, if there was no evidence that they told Russert or Cooper?

IF Wilson telling reporters about his wife was helpful to the defense, and IF it happened, they'd know about it. I don't recall a single proffer of a witness to show that anyone other than SAOs told reporters about Plame's wife. If they all knew about her, why is this?

On May 26, 2006, Libby's defense team told the judge that they had located "five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA." Do you suppose that the defense team was then acting in bad faith? And why do you suppose that Joe Wilson didn't come out and flatly deny he told others that his wife worked for the CIA at that time? Perhaps because he had done so?

[saveliberty]

Russert on 3 of the 5 counts. Russert had a secret conversation with a now retired FBI agent whose notes are lost. Russert then withheld this conversation from the subpoena. There's solid reason to question whether his testimony should be impeached.

Clearly you are convinced that he's guilty. I am not persuaded.

Not because he's conservative-- if I were persuaded that he did it, I would want him punished for his crime for the reason that I don't believe in a double standard when it comes to the rule of law. And the rule of law mandates that if Russert and Mitchell were making accusations about Libby to the FBI, then Libby has a right to confront them in trial.

Moreover, there is so much evidence that there was greater incentive for the reporters to lie than for Libby. It's reasonable to question it. It doesn't mean necessarily that they did lie, but it warrants closer and more vigorous scrutiny.

BTW Libby's friends assisting him include liberal editor of the New Republic, Marty Peretz.

You and I disagree. We just different sources and have different understandings of the case.

[lugsoul]

On May 26, 2006, Libby's defense team told the judge that they had located "five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA." Do you suppose that the defense team was then acting in bad faith? And why do you suppose that Joe Wilson didn't come out and flatly deny he told others that his wife worked for the CIA at that time? Perhaps because he had done so?

And yet they didn't proffer any of those witnesses, even to have the judge deny them. Who are they? Where are they? Does the representation by a lawyer convince you of the fact of what was stated, when they have completely failed to offer such evidence?

[saveliberty]

Good reads this morning from Tom Maguire of Just One Minute

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/media_matters_c.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/howard_kurtz_co.html

[saveliberty]

Clarice Feldman who has been following this case closely writes a very good column today

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/i_call_for_justice.html

[LS]

That's exactly the opposite of what Rush said yesterday. Care to post portions of the commentary?

[Howlin]

Thank you for all the links, save; I'm trying to catch up here; at least it sounds like SOME people feel and think like we do, huh?

[McGavin999]

I agree that Libby should be able to confront his accuser. Why wasn't the FBI agent subpoenaed? Even if retired he would have to show up in court then.

[saveliberty]

If Clarice Feldman and Tom Maguire are suppposed to be bad company, I am in :-)

[saveliberty]

Agent Bond was sent in his place. I think it depends on how the subpoena was issued.

She did what she could with the information she had, but was unsatisfactory.

[Della Street]

If Rush said that he is wrong. Libby wanted McClellan to publicly clear himself like he did Rove and Cheney defended Libby:

Cheney's handwritten scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including one that hinted Cheney believed his own staffer, Libby, was being sacrificed.

"Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others," the note read.

Cheney has consistantly supported Libby throughout and to this day without equivocation.

(the incompetence of others refers to the CIA)