Posted on 10/28/2005 7:49:53 PM PDT by Cincinnatus
Though I have never worked in a federal prosecutor's office, I have been an Assistant District Attorney and have presented cases to Grand Juries and have many years experience as a Criminal Court Judge at all levels, and as a defense counsel.
I have been analyzing the "Scooter" Libby indictment and I must say I don't see much there there. Without all the underlying evidence and testimony, of course, it's always hard to judge the strength of an indictment, but what I see thus far is not too impressive.
First, the whole thing seems to rest on what exactly Libby said to Tim Russert of NBC and Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine. The principal discrepancy is essentially whether Russert told Libby that the reporters all knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. The indictment says that statement is not true, so we must presume that Russert says that he didn't say that. Libby says he did, or at least told the FBI and the Grand Jury that.
When he spoke with Matthew Cooper a couple of days later, Libby says he told him that reporters had said she worked for the CIA. Cooper, it seems, denies that part. It is claimed that Libby unequivocally said he had heard that she works at the CIA, too. (I'll discuss the Cooper part in a later post).
So let's ignore the he said/he said for a moment. I want to show you why judging and analyzing testimony can be really difficult.
On television, it's all crystal clear: a coherent, unambiguous question, followed by an answer in complete sentences with subjects, verbs and objects all neatly in a row and chronologically presented, with absolutely no doubt about antecedents of pronouns. In the real world, as I learned daily in my sixteen years on the bench, it can often look like this:
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this - excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said - he may have said a little more but that was - he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in anyway confirming what he said, because at 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 I was first learning. And so I said, no. I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement, as confirmation for him.Now, the indictment thinks that this is a clear statement of Libby that he first learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent from Tim Russert. Is that what he's saying? Maybe. If you only read the first paragraph (and paragraphs are only a court reporter's convention) it might sound like that. But then he stops, backs up in time, sorts things out loud, thinks ahead, falls back, finally finishes off with "something like that."Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this - you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine.
So then he said — I said— he said. sorry — he. Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson''s wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no. I don't know that. And then he said, yeah—yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.
So, was it the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent that startled him, or was it the fact that all the reporters seemed to know she was a CIA agent that startled him? Or that Russert would think it was important that she was a CIA agent?
The very next question from the Special Prosecutor should have been:
Q. So you are saying that you first learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent from Tim Russert of NBC? A. Yes, that is my best recollection at this point in time.But if such a Q&A exists, I rather think it would have appeared in the indictment in place of the section quoted above.
The indictment itself lists the following as a matter "material to the Grand Jury Investigation":
i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIAIf they don't have any better quotes from Libby, they will have serious problems with most, if not all, of the charges.
Fi(sh)tzerman was shaky today in his presser.
I don't thinks he's quite the legal mind we've been told he is by the MSM.
Libby's lawyers could probably make this into an indictment of Fi(sh)tzerman if they are so inclined.
There will be no trial.
I look forward to Libby being acquitted. And Frist. And The Hammer. I really look forward to the day Americans wake up and realize trumped up charges and the politics of personal destruction are all the Democrats have to offer
Heard him on the radio. There's something wrong about that boy. I read the indictment. Could have been written by George Soros.
Yep. This guy makes David Boise look like a legal genius.
I've asked myself is Fitz really this stupid?
Maybe he has coldly calculated a backhanded way to get the liberal Press people and Joe Wilson subpoenaed for trial to uncover the truth?
On second thought...Naaaah. He probably wants to get toasted at liberal cocktail parties for life.
That's what so hard about this charge- is it based on lies to the Grand Jury, or lies that he made to a reporter?
That's part of what makes the quote so confusing. Libby is clearly saying he wasn't doing anything to confirm the statement, but I think it can be read in such a way that he's NOT saying he didn't know that Plame was CIA at the time of the conversation, which is the opposite of what the indictment says. I was once on the stand for 14 hours over two days. You can sound a lot incoherent after a while!
Again attacking the Democrats for a single man's inequity. First of all the Special Investigation was ordered by the White House as well the Special Prosecutor was appointed by it. So, to blame the Democrats for Libby's indictment is ignorant. Secondly, the Demon-c-Rats are all giggling like schoolgirls at a fourth grade dance with giddy excitement about these trumped up charges that will most probably be thrown out of court by any judge with common sense. Lastly, let's (Republicans and Conservatives) focus on the issues that face this country and do all we can to solve present problems rather than throw silly accusations back at a bunch of ignorant politicos.
Maybe, if this goes to trial, he can baffle the jury with passages such as that and they'll acquite him out of sympathy.
Is this really testimony by Libby?
nah...hes not stupid...somebody got to him..any guesses as to who???I have a good idea who....can you say hillary???
As to Fitzgerald, he was so intent on finding a flea he completely ignored the elephant sitting on his lap. What a disappointment.
I too listened to Fitz on the radio and he sounded demonic and possessed.
He didn't even call Plame to the Grand Jury!!!!!!! He probably didn't even ASK Tenet if she was COVERT in that time period!!! He is a Democrat HACK!!
If and when Mr. Libby is sentenced, I think he should calibrate the entire imbroglio with, "I did not sleep with that woman."
Yes, this is the actual (entire) quote that is the basis for half the indictment.
Whatever
And he didn't bother talking to Plame's neighbors till a couple of days ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.