Posted on 10/28/2005 1:05:49 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is a very curious press conference just conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. With his machine-gun delivery. He repeatedly flopped back and forth between saying that the “outing” of Valerie Plame, wife of discredited Ambassador Joe Wilson was a “serious matter,” and saying that he “reached no conclusion” whether she had been outed, and if so, when and by whom.
The mood in the room among the reporters changed appreciably as the conference went on. Initially, the press was very interested in the charges made and reasons for them, and in the charges not made against other people, and the reasons why not. But by the end of the conference, the reporters were clearly puzzled by the wandering speech of Fitzgerald and his lame analogies about a baseball pitcher throwing at a batter’s head, and a bank robber with his fingerprint on the holdup note and a signed confession.
Again and again, Mr. Fitzgerald said that it was “vital” that he and his Grand Jury should get to the end of the process with a “clear understanding of all of the facts.” Yet, again and again, he replied to reporters’ questions by saying that he “had not reached a conclusion” about central facts of the matter concerning either Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson.
Source: this is written as the press conference is under way. The transcript will surely be posted on the Internet within minutes.
Toward the end of the conference, I realized what I was watching. Fitzgerald was offering the press and the nation a version of Humphrey Bogart’s star turn in his last film as Phillip Francis Queeg, the Captain of the USS Caine in The Caine Mutiny (1954). The turning point in that film came when the obsessive Captain comes apart on the stand while being cross-examined by the lawyer for the mutineers in their trial.
Beginning with the exposure of Captain Queeg as obsessive in the story about the missing strawberries from the mess hall, the Captain visibly unravels. As he does so, he takes two ball bearings from his pocket and begins to play with them in his hand.
Fitzgerald seems to be a similar person. He is wound far too tight. He is obsessing about a few conversations with reporters (where it might be the reporters, not Scooter Libby, who are either lying or maybe just poorly remembering what happened years ago). At the same time, Fitzgerald is deliberately ignoring the larger fact that a war is going on, and must be won. It was just like Captain Queeg.
Fitzgerald had everything except the strawberries, and the ball bearings. By the end, I think many of the reporters had reached the same conclusion.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
bttt
Thank you for your very thoughtful analysis. To your point:
"why do we even get to the point of this indictment if LEGAL analysis of known facts indicate NO LAW COULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN IF THE NAME WAS DISCLOSED? Especially given the obvioius context -- a pi**ing match between the CIA and the White House during wartime -- I would think Libby's testimony could be overlooked'
Isn't that exactly what SP Robert Ray did w Hillary (and possibly, Bill, too - I don't recall all of the specifics)? Didn't he say he had enough to indict her (and possibly him) but for the good of the country he wasn't going to do it and felt we should all just move forward?
"If Wilson was sent on this "secret" mission, why was it okay to leak his report to the NY Times, and then write an Op-Ed?"
From what I've read, he didn't have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which, as I understand is usually SOP, so it wasn't apparently considered a leak.
I also understand that it is usual for people sent on trips to provide a written report to the CIA;however, he didn't need to do that, but, instead gave an oral report to the CIA, and they wrote it up. IMO He gave the written report of his trip to the NYT (and a bogus one at that).
The independent prosecutor investigating the Clinton White House says he has found substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in several controversial sackings in the White House travel office in 1993.
However, Robert Ray says he doesn't plan to bring charges against the first lady because he can't prove that she deliberately lied about her role.
Mrs Clinton has always denied any involvement in the firings.
The announcement comes while she is busy campaigning to become a senator for New York in the elections in six months' time.
--
In 1995, lawyers for the independent counsel asked Clinton who made the decision to fire the Travel Office workers. She answered, "Well, the best I know is David Watkins and Mack McLarty, I assume, based on what I have learned since and read in the newspapers."
The lawyers asked if Clinton had any role in the firings. "No, I did not," she said. They asked whether she "had any input with either Mr. McLarty or Mr. Watkins as to that decision." She answered, "I don't believe I did, no."
The First Lady's statements, under oath, were patently false. And indeed, at the end of the investigation, independent counsel Robert Ray determined that "Clinton did play a role and have input in the decision to fire the Travel Office employees and that her testimony to the contrary was factually false."
Yet Ray declined to prosecute, saying that "insufficient proof exists to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton ... knowingly gave false material testimony."
All that was ancient history — until the publication of Living History. Now, the former First Lady not only claims the independent counsel exonerated her but blames the enduring controversy on a "partisan political climate."
Yeah, right. That's her story, and she's sticking to it.
---
Networks Didn't Care About Hillary's False Testimony
Posted by Rich Noyes on October 24, 2005 - 10:44.
For weeks now, the media have breathlessly hyped the possibility that presidential advisor Karl Rove might be indicted by the grand jury looking into the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak. Or, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could choose not to indict anyone, and instead issue a detailed report of who knew what, when they knew it, and from whom they heard it.
Given the ridiculously overwrought coverage of the last month, if Fitzgerald’s report confirms media suspicions that Rove and/or vice presidential aide Lewis Libby talked to reporters about Valerie Plame and weren’t completely forthcoming to investigators, you can expect the networks to go absolutely nuts, whether anyone is indicted or not.
That’s why it’s worth recalling how the networks just yawned five years ago when Hillary Clinton — who, one might recall, was a pretty high level individual in the last administration — was found to have lied to investigators looking into one of the Clintons’ very first abuses of power, the firing of White House Travel office employees:
In a report released October 18, 2000, independent counsel Robert Ray determined Hillary had given false testimony when questioned about the travel office firings, a crime that Ray declined to prosecute. FNC reporter David Shuster (now with MSNBC) explained on that night’s Special Report with Brit Hume:
“The investigation began in the administration’s first term when seven members of the Travel Office staff were terminated and replaced by a company run by Clinton friends. The issue for prosecutors was whether anybody in the White House tried to cover up alleged mismanagement of the firings.
“Under oath, Mrs. Clinton flatly denied any role and denied that she had any input, but later a memo surfaced from administration chief David Watkins suggesting Mrs. Clinton wanted the travel staff fired. Watkins said there would be hell to pay if swift action was not taken in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes. A friend of Watkins also alleged that Watkins was told to quote, ‘fire the sons of bitches.’
“While that claim could not be substantiated, Independent Counsel Robert Ray cited eight separate conversations between the First Lady and senior staff and concluded: ‘Mrs. Clinton’s input into the process was significant, if not the significant factor influencing the pace of events in the Travel Office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees.’”
Shuster then showed George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley: “It essentially says that she satisfies all of the components of an indictment and is ultimately safe from trial simply by the discretion of the prosecutor. That’s pretty damning.”
So what did the three networks do that night? The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News didn’t utter a word about it, while ABC’s World News Tonight gave it just 20 seconds, less than one-sixth the time allocated to a story on the “subway series” between the New York Yankees and Mets. The October 18 Inside Politics on CNN gave the development 21 seconds.
The short item read by ABC anchor Peter Jennings: “The independent counsel investigating various activities of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton said today that Mrs. Clinton gave false testimony about her role in the firing of White House travel workers seven years ago. But Robert Ray concluded she should not be prosecuted because there was insufficient evidence that she intended to influence the decision.”
If the current special prosecutor offers a similar bottom line verdict on Rove or Libby, it’s not a stretch to suggest the networks would be at the front of the liberal lynch mob insisting that they lose their jobs. But five years ago they snoozed when they learned about Hillary Clinton’s false testimony.
Thanks for the clarification and the update - I read as much as I can (mostly on FR - best sources and comments), but somewhere I missed that Fitz met w Gonzales last week.
It was one of those facts that flew by somewhere.........LOL.
Andy wasn't smart enough to make that comment.
Marshall McLuhan was, though.
Very good summary of what he SHOULD have asked and what transpired. I would only add that:
1) Joe W. wrote a book and was trying to peddle it on news and other shows during this time
2) If Joe was trying to maintain his wife's 'secret life', why did they both appear on the cover of Vanity Fair (I suspect they'd say the cat was out of the bag, so no harm no foul, but IMHO it was a bit unseemly)
3) Why didn't Fritz suponea or question Andrea Mitchell who was apparently said on MSNBC (quote has been on several threads on FR) that it was known in DC that Val worked for the CIA.
4) As I mentioned earlier, journalists and attorneys (including Victoria Toensing who drafted the law) filed Amicus Briefs with another court (IIRC on behalf of Judith Miller) stating that Val was not outed. If she wasn't outed, no law was broken, so why didn't Fitz just drop the case? Was it because he had such lattitude and was going to search for something and try to make a (bigger) name for himself? And/or was it something else?
In the sections of Libby's testimony quoted in the indictment, Libby is struggling to reconcile his statements that he learned about Plame from reporters with the contrary proof that he learned it from within the government, saying that he had forgotten the prior knowledge when he talked to reporters. From Count Four, referring to his July 10 conversation with Russert, "[A]t 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." But he had discussed it two days before that with Miller, so his earlier version is just not particularly credible.
It is notable that Libby's allegation of perjury with respect to Matthew Cooper consists of the difference between these two versions:
LIBBY: I said I had heard that [that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA] from other reporters and I didn't know if it was true. Count Five, para. 2(a)
COOPER: He said he'd heard that too. Count 1, Para. 23.
That particular discrepancy is a slender reed, indeed.
Isn't DeGeurin DeLay's attorney ..?? If so - then I agree with you 100%.
I don't know who's made the statements, but I've read some statements like, "Libby is ready to aggressively defend against these charges" .. or something similar to that. So I hope that's true. I do not want these lying sack's of puke to get away with this witch hunt against the WH.
Here's what frosts me about this indictment. He dignifies the proven lies of Joseph Wilson by repeating them in the indictment when he describes news accounts of Wilson's statements and Wilson's op ed. But he never points out that they were lies.
Yessirree.
How very Freudian. Got any dirt on his mother?
Captain Queeg mixed with a deer in the headlights.
bttt
Great job! Now do one of Fitz as Ahab and you'll have both of his faces covered.
Thanks for the studied analysis. I have not read the indictment, but from your and Fitz's statements, it appears Libby has some serious downside on this. I suspect he will try to get a "Berger"-like deal and plead.
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.