Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment yesterday on whether he had evidence for the perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement counts beyond the testimonies of Mr. Libby and three journalists. Instead, he noted that a criminal investigation into a "national security matter" of this sort hinged on "very fine distinctions," and that any attempt to obscure exactly who told what to whom and when was a serious matter.
To the extent that the facts alleged in the indictment can be relied upon, the story goes something like this. Sometime in May 2003, or slightly before, Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times, was informed of Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake there. Mr. Kristof wrote a column, and Mr. Libby began to ask around, to determine why a Democratic partisan had been sent on such a sensitive mission in the run-up to the Iraq war. He allegedly learned in the course of his inquiries that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Mr. Fitzgerald alleges that Mr. Libby informed Judith Miller of the New York Times about Mr. Wilson's wife in June, but she never wrote it up. In the meantime, Mr. Wilson went public with his own account of his mission and its outcome, without reference to his wife's employment or possible involvement in his trip.
Mr. Libby also spoke to Mr. Cooper of Time about it, who did write it up, but only after Mr. Novak's column had run. In this same time period, he had a conversation with Mr. Russert, which may or may not have covered Mr. Wilson and his wife, depending on whom you believe.
So, we are left with this. Did Mr. Libby offer the truth about Mr. Wilson to Mr. Cooper "without qualifications," as Mr. Fitzgerald alleges, or did he merely confirm what Mr. Cooper had heard elsewhere? Did he, or did he not, discuss Mr. Wilson with Tim Russert at all?
On this much we can agree with Mr. Fitzgerald: These are "very fine distinctions" indeed, especially as they pertain to discussions that occurred two years ago, and whose importance only became clear well after the fact, when investigators came knocking. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Libby's counsel zeroed in on this point when he said, "We are quite distressed the Special Counsel has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others' and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements." He added that they "will defend vigorously against these charges."
------------------------------------------------------
Unless you have the grand jury testimony in full you will find that at least 50 percent of the initial media reports will turn out to be false.
Main stream media types tend to tell you what ever the DNC says and report it as gospel truth. I don't think the WSJ editorial page was spinning.
I would not put a lot of faith in what Fitzgerald says. I will bet you that all three reporters refuse to answer some questions the defense asks during cross examination at the trial.
If they do the judge has no option but to throw out all their testimoney. That is why is is so important to know if Fizgerald has other evidence besides the three journalists testimonmy. Fritzgerald was asked and dodged the question. He has to show the defendant all the evidence he has against him. So if he has more, why not tell the world.
If he does not have anything but the reporters .. then one of two things is going to happen. We are going to learn a lot about who in the CIA illegaly leaks national security secrets to Russert, Cooper and Miller in an attempt to destroy the government they work for, or the reporters are going to refuse to testify. That will get some CIA people indicted and fired.
I think that Libby's lawyers gave Fitzgerald a real surprise. Fitzgerald at his press conference sure acted like a man who had a tiger by the tail. He may have found that out after he got the indictments but before he made them public the defense was not going for his plea bargain.
No defense attorney can say I am prepared to do "A" before his client is indicted. But there is nothing stopping him from doing it after he knows his client is indicted. That is called attempted plea bargaining strategy. And a stratedy of WE will fight to the death may in this case be a good one. I think Fitzmas offered Libby a plea bargan figuring he was certain to take it. Perhaps the offered pleabargain was just to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. And by golly miss Molly, maybe Libby did not take it.
But back to the reporters.. If you were advising the three reporters, what would you have Miller, Russert and Cooper do?
I think their lawyers would have told Fitz they would refuse to answer defense questions on the stand before he got the indictments. There were reports taht Fritz was meeting with the reporters lawyers in the final days and with Libbys lawyer after the indictments were made by the grand jury.
It is unheard of. but Fritzmas did it. He went to see Libby's lawyer on Thursday. That is not the act of a prosecutor with a whip hand. Betcha Fritzmas went to get a plea bargan Thursday and didn't get one.
I didn't see anything in all of that about Libby testifying that he first heard about Plame's status from Russert. Isn't that what it is all about?