Posted on 10/28/2005 10:29:03 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
A number of observations tonight from people who know and follow the CIA leak case:
The first is that they view the indictment against Lewis Libby as very strong. One source called it "as clear-cut an indictment" as one would ever see, and the consensus is that Libby is in serious trouble. If Libby lied as much as Fitzgerald accuses him of lying, the sources say, then Libby acted in an astonishingly reckless way.
The observers also suspect that Fitzgerald has some strong but as yet unrevealed evidence to support the centerpiece of his perjury charge against Libby, that is, Libby's testimony to the grand jury about his conversation with NBC's Tim Russert on July 10, 2003, in which Libby swore that it was Russert who told him that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA:
"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."
What is striking about the indictment, observers say, is that Fitzgerald does not say simply that Russert has another recollection. Instead, the indictment says:
In truth and fact, as Libby well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that: a. Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA...
In another place in the indictment, Fitzgerald states flatly that "Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it." That sort of definitiveness has led the observers to suspect that Fitzgerald has some sort of evidence that clearly supports Russert's account of the conversation.
In addition, the observers are unanimously appalled by the performance of Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate. This is something that has been discussed for quite a while now -- at least since Libby's infamous "the aspens will already be turning" letter to Judith Miller. What lawyer, they ask, would have allowed his client to write and send such a letter -- clearly raising suspicions that Libby was trying to influence testimony and possibly obstruct the investigation? Now, Libby is said to be in the market for a good criminal defense lawyer. If he had done that earlier, the observers say, he might not be in the trouble he is in now.
Another consensus opinion is the cautious belief that Karl Rove might not, ultimately, face any charges. Rove is not mentioned by name in the Libby indictment, and only once by a pseudonym -- "Official A." Although the indictment is not about Rove, the observers get the sense that Rove emerges as a far less important player in the whole affair than Libby; it was Libby, for example, and apparently not Rove, who got in touch with the CIA and the State Department about the Wilson matter. In addition, word is that Rove made some sort of presentation to Fitzgerald in the last days of the investigation that made Fitzgerald less inclined to take action against Rove. What that involved is is not clear.
And finally, many observers of the investigation marvel at what is still not known after nearly two years of probing. Who leaked the story to Robert Novak? What, precisely, was Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA at the time Novak's column revealed her identity? Fitzgerald presumably knows the answers to those questions. But, at least so far, he isn't saying.
Fitzy said specifically it was LL's own notes. This guy is in trouble. He may beat it in a court, but don't count on it: it will be a blizzard of whosaidwhatwhen, and if a jury has ANY concrete evidence (a diary or notebook) that will carry more weight than oral testimony. LL better have a heckuva lawyer.
Well, Mary Matalin was on Hannity just praising him up one side and down the other. So I don't know if Southack is right or not. I do think the guy is in trouble. He said WAY too much. Anyone will tell you that your answers should be "yes," "no," and, most often, "I don't know" or "I don't recall." The fact that he was so chatty is a huge problem.
True, but you always say, in that case, "I don't recall," "I think maybe, but I could be wrong." You Clinton-ize.
Thank you for posting this, kcvl.
If one reads this, and individually parses out each section, there is NO WAY that The Plame can be a "covert" agent.
He believes Russert's side because LL's own notebook, apparently, supports Russert's side.
Whoa, there South. You're really starting to get the tinfoil out. If he was a closet Dem, he'd have been PROMOTING Joe Wilson, not seeking to warn reporters away.
If you read the Act over on Wikipedia it's quite clear: her employment relationship with any agency must be classified, and she must have served in that capacity overseas within the last five years. Those two conditions define "covert" under the Act. It is spelled-out very clearly.
So if she was at Langley in a "classified" employment status, but hadn't been overseas in the last five years, she's not legally "covert". Legally.
In practical terms I'd guess this means that one's employment file is properly marked (aka "classified"), irrespective of the actual job duties.
Funny, if Plame is still employed by CIA, and if her employment jacket is marked (you know, formally "marked"), then it's possible she's now officially and legally "covert" due to her residence in France. Not in the common colloquial sense, but by the legal definition.
People wonder why she's hotfooted it overseas. Well, if she's now officially (and legall) "covert" then cleared people in the federal government will be extremely careful when talking about her.
"Covert" has a very specific meaning under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It's pretty clear that she was not legally "covert", else Libby (and probably others) would be looking at very different charges.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act
Her current residence in France might have changed her status.
Our senators were cowards---and, by the way, while I'm no fan of DeWine or Voinovich, they BOTH voted to convict Clinton.
In this case, you do not have a politician---LL was not elected to anything. It is entirely appropriate for him to be judged by the judicial system. Clinton WAS brought up on perjury, and he beat the rap. Ce la vie.
Libby is in big trouble if his own notebooks contradict what he said. Even Mark Levin said so yesterday, after huffing and puffing about how the nothing was ever done about the "original charge" (true), but then saying that LL should have said "I don't recall," or "I think I said, but I can't be sure." But if you read his statements, they are way too chatty and informative. He was trying to tell a story. Now, if it's the truth, we will soon know. If not, I want to know why he felt the need to tell such a story and not say, "I don't recall."
It seems to me that if LL is completely innocent (yes, I know, innocent until proven guilty), then Novak has a moral responsibility that overrides his journalists' ethics to come forward and NAME HIS SOURCE and exonerate LL.
Makes one wonder how much input Fitz had from Larry Johnson.
Anyone bother to think Fritz threw up this nonsense cause he knew after the Media feeding frenzy if he came out and said "no crime" he was going to suddenly be the target of the Dinosaur Media ream job? No surprise the whine all the time choirs at NRO are spinning as hard as they can for Fritz.
I thought you said neither source was in the White House. Wouldn't Fleischer be in the WH? (BTW, I like your thinking so far. You seem rational, and acquainted with the law, and not knee-jerk hysterical. LL is in a lot of trouble if there is a notebook or recording).
The fact that Plame was or was not anything at all is irrelevant to the situation Libby finds himself in now. One must not lie in front of a Grand Jury (unless named Clinton, or have a "D" after your name).
If he did lie, for whatever reason, he is adrift without oars.
So in other words. NO CRIME was committed and Friz is throwing up what he DOES have instead of using his judgment and say "There not there there" and closing down shop.
I hope you are right. My guess--and I'm no lawyer---is that in a courtroom, a jury is more swayed by a recording or a notebook than oral testimony of conflicting parties.
While listening to Fitz, one of the first things I thought when he said Libby's description of his conversation with Russert was a lie was Russert must have produced a recording. Either that, or Russert had the call on speaker phone and somebody else is backing up Russert. Reminded me of Mike Wallace secretly taping conversations during 60 Minutes pieces.
Of course, Libby would be more involved. Wilson insinuated that the VP's office was behind his trip to Niger. Knowing the truth, the VP's office wanted to find out more about Wilson and his allegations.
Lest we forget, Libby was the lawyer for Marc Rich, the nation's biggest tax cheat who renounced his American citizenship, then fled to evade prosecution. By all accounts, Libby called to congratulate Rich on getting the Clinton pardon, and he made the call from the Vice President's office.
That's not something a true blue conservative would do. Makes you wonder what side this guy Libby is on, doesn't it?
I guess Marc Rich must have been gratified to know he had a "friend" in the new Bush administration, right smack dab in the VP's office. Having a foot in both political camps, although totally unprincipled, is so handy, especially if you are a convicted tax cheat.
The story to now: Judith Miller was released from jail on 29 September 2005 after agreeing to testify. She appeared in front of the grand jury on 30 September.
American Prospect magazine revealed in August 2005 that Libby had testified that he met with NY Times reporter, Judith Miller, on July 8, 2003 and discussed Plame with her at that time. Miller was jailed on 6 July 2005 for contempt of court after refusing to testify to the grand jury about this meeting despite a signed blanket waiver from Libby allowing journalists to discuss their conversations.
Miller has argued that Libby's waiver to all journalists may well have been coerced and that she would only testify if given an individual waiver, which Miller received while serving her sentence.
The waiver was offered "voluntarily and personally" by Libby, accompanied by his letter which has raised eyebrows because of Libby's hinting as to what he expects from her testimony, and a poetic and cryptic ending which has been the subject of much speculation.
Libby: "As noted above, my lawyer confirmed my waiver to other reporters in just the way he did with your lawyer. Why? Because as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call......
"You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover -- Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work—-and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers. With admiration, Scooter Libby." [Emphasis added.]
====================================================
Sure doesn't sound like something a conservative would write, now does it? And don't you just love Libby's gratuitous reference to the "Iranian nuclear program." Clearly Libby was setting Miller up to push his agenda. Talk about agitprop. Guy's a master proselytizer.
Like you said.......good riddance.
I would add that the others who recall their conversations with Libby and indicate he told them about Pflame have the same problem. Sounds to me as the start of a good defense.
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.