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.
If I reveal classified material, no matter who else supposedly has already done this, I'm still guilty of a crime.
That kicks perjury out the door, because you can't ever then prove "intent" to lie.
If that's true...and Tim Russert recorded the conversation between he and Libby- Russert's days as anyone's go-to guy by politicians in D.C. are finished.
It's hard to believe- but I guess it's possible.
The illegal tapes of the conversation will prove innocence or guilt.
"Why does Fitzgerald believe Russert's side of the story?"
Because if your fitzie, who would you rather fight, the MSM
or a timid, nad-less, play by enemy rules WH?
The answer is the WH.
Doesn't matter who he would prefer to fight- he must have evidence. From the sounds of this it seems there may be tapes. If true- Libby is toast- but so is Timmy.
In his lame press conference, I didn't hear a word from Fitzgerald about how he determined whether or not a crime had been committed. In fact, Fitz didn't seem to care if a crime had occurred.
I didn't hear Fitzgerald's entire analogy about a ball player getting beaned (my radio station decided I needed to hear some commercial announcements) but what I heard was weak with one glaring hole in it. In Fitz's little parable, a batter has been beaned and now someone must find out if the pitcher did it intentionally.
The weakness in Fitz's argument is that the batter was beaned. Everyone in the stadium saw the incident. A better analogy would have been that, in a night game, the pitcher throws the ball and it is heading right at the batter when the lights go out leaving the stadium in complete darkness. Nobody knows if the batter was beaned or not. The first thing that must be determined is, was the batter, in fact hit.
Fitzgerald needed to first determine if leaking Plame's name rose to the level of a crime, no matter who leaked it. As far as I can tell, he never did that. He simply instituted a witch hunt.
"Don't bet on it. Fitzgerald has *allready*
opened the door, with his unnsupported
accusations of yesterdays press conference."
The trial against Libby will involve alleged lies and false statements he made to the grand jury and investigators about his conversations with journalists. Please explain how Wilson & his wife can be called as witnesses? They were not witnesses to the conversations.
Fox's coverage across the board has gotten very lazy.
The time to invoke the 5th Amendment is before one testifies. He cannot invoke it to "erase" what's already been done, and if he invokes it for future proceedings, the statements upon which he has been indicted stand alone.
One of the news shows the other night had a panel of attorneys, one was David Boies, and they all agreed that they would advise a private client to invoke the 5th and refuse to testify so as not to end up like Martha Stewart or Libby, but as he is a public official, his refusal to testify would be more politically damaging than the personal damage which would result from the testimony.
These were attorneys of all political stripes, but they all agreed on that point.
Larry J.-
We the people deserve people in the CIA who don't send their ambassador husband on missions to eat cake at tea parties and a media who tell the truth in preference to fiction.
We the people deserve those who work to protect the nation to be committed to protecting the nation, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists should not be forced to focus its efforts on protecting our nation from the enemy within who insist on destroying this great nation.
You are absolutely correct. A reporter asked and he said "classified".
If I'm not mistaken, ALL CIA employees are "classified".
That is a far cry from "covert".
"he has Libby's own NOTEBOOKS where he contradicted his own testimony."
Or so he says. Can't forget, all liberals lie all the time.
I'll believe it when I read both the notebook passages and the testimony that is alleged to contradict them.
And maybe not then, if it looks more like an honest mistake.
These fools have attempted to shake up this administration. The reality is they have brought charges, which are not very well understood, against someone the public never heard of until two weeks ago. Nobody cares except the players. Win to Bush.
Not all 'classified' is necessarily 'covert.' But all 'covert' is 'classified.'
'Classified' does NOT mean 'not covert.' It MAY mean 'not necessarily covert.'
Memo to Larry Johnson
If Val baby was so concerned with her "covert" status she probably should have urged her husband not to accept a high profile mission on behalf of the agency, and furthermore not to lie about his findings upon his return. Good Americans my ass.
bttt
Wilson has made many allegations about the source of his wife's outing and was the presumed source of a number of articles in the months leading up to the July Novak column. He was speaking to reporters as well and it is conceivable that many reporters did in fact know about his wife's employment with the Agency. Libby may be able to make the case that many reporters knew about Plame and attack the credibility of Russert. et al.
From a July 17 MTP transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
Oct 5 Transcript MTP
WILSON: ...it’s pretty clear to me that the administration decided—after they had acknowledged that the 16 words didn’t rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address, they decided to leak my wife’s name to the media. Now, I believe it was done to discourage others from coming forward. At that time there were a lot of analysts who were speaking anonymously to the press about any number of issues related to the intelligence that undergirded the decision to go to war. I felt that, however abominable the decision might be, it was rational that if you were in the administration and you did not want people talking about the intelligence or talking about what underpinned the decision to go to war, you would discourage them by destroying the credibility of the messenger who brought you the message. And this administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife.
Russert: What did journalists tell you that the White House officials were saying to them?
Wilson: Four days after Bob Novak’s article came out, which outed my wife, I was—I started receiving calls from journalists and news agencies saying, first, that “The White House is saying things about you and your wife that are so off the wall we can’t even put them up,” followed by, over the weekend—so that would have been five or six days after the Novak article —a respected journalist called me up and said, “White House sources are telling us that this story is not about the 16 words”—even though the administration had acknowledged they should not have been in the State of the Union address—”this story is about Wilson and his wife.” And finally, on Monday, a week after the Novak article, I received a call from a journalist who told me, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says that your wife is fair game.”
Russert: This was all after the Novak column appeared?
Wilson: That’s correct.
Russert: So White House officials could have been pointing out the Novak column to journalists, but that could not be considered a crime.
Wilson: In my judgment there were—after having read The Washington Post article, which quotes a source as saying that there were an initial two officials who contacted six journalists, my thinking on this is there were probably two waves. There was the potential crime of leaking my wife’s name by these two officers to six journalists. I don’t know the two. I don’t know the six journalists. I had assumed from conversations with Mr. Novak he was one. He has since said he wasn’t. And then I believe there was a second wave, which was the pushing of the story. The one was possibly illegal; the other was certainly unethical. And this is a tough town, understandably, but this is a town in which family members are not normally dragged into the public square.
(Videotape, August 21, 2003):
Wilson: Well, I don’t think we’re going to let this drop. At the end of the day, it’s of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me when I use that name, I measure my words.
(End videotape)
Russert: “Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.”
Wilson: The—that particular comment is taken a little bit out of context. It was written—it was taken in response to a question about whether or not I was interested in seeing the investigation go forward, which, of course, I am. Additionally, at that time, that was before The Washington Post article which cited two other leakers. So my wife thinks I probably got carried away in the spirit of the moment. So I would amend and extend my remarks. The two leakers who leaked the crime, who potentially engaged in outing a national security asset, if that was a criminal—if that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House. As to the rest of these guys who pushed this story in a way that is an abomination, even by Washington standards, I would be happy just to see them frog-marched or escorted out of the White House, out of handcuffs.
Russert: But by using the name Karl Rove at that time, you had no basis to identify him as a leaker.
Wilson: The CIA is an executive branch agency that reports to the president of the United States. The act of leaking my wife’s name was a political act. The political office resides in the White House. It seems to me to be a useful place to begin any investigation in the White House political office, which is headed by Karl Rove. Now, I don’t know if he leaked it. I don’t know if he authorized it. But I have every confidence in the world that he and the communications office of the White House continued to push this story, gave it legs, for a week after, until I appeared on an NBC program, and said this might be a violation of federal law.
Libby may or may not have lied about his contacts with the journalists. Given Wilson's contacts with the same journalists, it may be a fruitful avenue for Libby to pursue Wilson's assertions about his meetings with these journalists and what they were telling him and vice versa. It may bring up questions about the journalists' credibility and agenda.
Probably an 'selective' recording and what IF Libby also has a recording?
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.