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.
Don't be surprised if Russert taped the conversation.
Libby "outed" Plame the way anyone who said that Liberace was a homosexual in the Seventies would have "outed" Liberace.
"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."
The above is NOT what the Libby indictments are about. Libby will be brought to trial over alleged lies and false statements that have NOTHING to do with how many reporters knew about Plame's indentity. Libby is alleged to have lied to the grand jury and investigators about the content of his conversations with reporters. Wilson and his wife were not witnesses to these conversations. I don't think you have a very good understanding of legal proceedings in a court of law. I also don't think you've read the indictments.
Can someone explain why " b. At the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA..." is relevant. He's just recalling what he told Russert.
There is another part of "classified" as well, which Fitzgerald isn't going into because it would be a disaster at trial. Something is not simply classified because a bureauctrat said it was classified. [Somewhere someone has probably classified the fact that humans breath air.]
In order to convict for revealing classified information you have to prove that the fact was properly classifed - i.e. that actual or potential damage to national security results from revealing the information, and that the government is not using classification to cover up improper actions or activities. It is because of the latter that attempts to take clearances away from whistleblowers often fails and results in damages and restoration of clearances.
In this case the CIA/Wilson/Pfame have tried to rely on her status to cover up a renegade political strike against the administration.
If the information is already out there and general knowledge, it is not classified, no matter how many government bureaucrats leap up and down and say it is.
So his claim about Pfame's status being classified is doubly disingenuous. Distinction one is that she is not covert. Distinction two is that details of her assignments at CIA are classified. That does not mean that stating what was too common knowledge that she worked for the CIA is an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
The indictments as brought against Libby,
are based on the stated supposition that
Libby is/has obstructed justice, in the
relevant nature of covering up illegal
activity. and yet no illegal activity
has been proven. Plames staus as an
active covert agent, under cover, art
the time of the supposed exposing, and
the accusations made by Wilson of said
llegal activity, are relevant to all that
charges of false statements and perjury
that Fitzgerald has brought against Libby
BY HIS OWN STATEMENTS made to the press.
One can not be found guilty of aiding and
abetting a crime that never happened.
Libby could have just as easliy recited
nursery rhymes, every time he was
interviewed, or testified, and been
as equally not guilty of obstruction
or perjury. What has preceded, has
been kangaroo witchuntery. And soon,
the accusers, the *real* hidden perjurors,
]are going to have to take the witness
stand....and we'll see how *they* testify.
I agree, I posted this same thoughts 5 mins. after the papers were released yesterday.
Was selecting Joe Wilson to gather "intel" a "POLITICAL ACT"?
"Can someone explain why 'b. At the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA...' is relevant. He's just recalling what he told Russert."
It's relevant because there is a disagreement between two witnesses (Libby & Russert) about the content of their phone conversation. The Feds can use Libby's statement above as evidence that he [Libby] is the person who is not telling the truth.
Novak said the two officials were in the administration but NOT in the White House. Sorry, don't have a link, but I recall seeing evidence at the time, that Novak said "administration officials but did not work in the WH". Novak specifically said that one of them in particular was "no partisan gunslinger". Karl Rove is as partisan as they come. And he is in the WH.
Fruit of the bitter tree only applies to evidence that the police collect, not that is given to them by the public. Recall that it was also illegal for Linda Tripp to record Monica's conversations but it was entered into evidence.
So why does Firzgerald believe Russert and not Libby?
Probably because Scooter says that he first heard of Wilsons wife from Russert but Libbys own notes, and testimony from Cheney, Fleischer, and many other government employees indicates they either told Libby or he that Libby was in meetings where he actively discussed Wilson and his wife weeks before he supposedly "learned" the answer to the mystery he had been trying to get an answer to for months from a reporter. Unfortunately, Russert categorically denies that they ever discussed Wilson much less his wife. In fact since he didnt know Wilson had a wife, much less that she was at the CIA, he couldnt have told Libby. So on one hand you have Libbys lenthy memory about his discussion with Russert but no memory of Cheney and others telling him much earlier.
"The indictments as brought against Libby, are based on the stated supposition that Libby is/has obstructed justice, in the relevant nature of covering up illegal
activity. and yet no illegal activity has been proven. Plames staus as an active covert agent, under cover, art
the time of the supposed exposing, and the accusations made by Wilson of said llegal activity, are relevant to all that charges of false statements and perjury
that Fitzgerald has brought against Libby BY HIS OWN STATEMENTS made to the press."
It's hard to know where to start with the above statement. There are so many inaccuracies.
1) The indictment against Libby for obstruction of justice is based solely on the alleged lies to the grand jury and the alleged false statements to the federal investigators.
2) Wilson and his wife are completely irrelevant as to whether Libby lied to the grand jury or to investigators. Wilson and his wife were not witnesses to the conversations between Libby and the reporters so they can not offer any relevant testimony as to whether Libby is lying about the content of those conversations.
3) READ THE INDICTMENTS so you know what you're talking about!
"I agree, I posted this same thoughts 5 mins. after the papers were released yesterday."
Libby's statements to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert are relevant in the sense that they can help to determine which of two witnesses (Libby or Russert) is lying. Since what Libby claims he told Russert is false (that he [Libby] didn't know about Plame before he spoke to Russert), the Feds can use that statement as evidence that Libby is lying and Russert is telling the truth.
Or as Fitz said in news conference he couldnt determine Libbys intent in leaking the information since he had obstructed the investigation and lied. Plame not only has to be covert, Libby has to know that, and intentionally attempt to out her not accidentally in clarifying her involvement in sending Amb Wilson to Niger.
someone needs to ask Andrea Mitchell.. she said everyone knew valerie plame worked for the CIA
That was my first thought yesterday.
"Novak said the two officials were in the administration but NOT in the White House."
Thanks for refreshing my memory. If the above is true, then it eliminates Rove, Fleisher, and Libby. It's hard to see who's left -- maybe someone in the State Department or CIA.
If you watched the press conference you would know he went out of his way not to do that. He refused to even speculate about her status in response to several questions because he wasnt charging Libby with anything related to that.
Anyone bother to stop for even a heart beat to consider that all these accusations of "lying" are just the Prosecutors opinion, not statements of fact?
I would of thought after Rush and after Delay "Conservatives" would wise up to the fact that JUST cause a Prosecutor makes an accusation does NOT mean he has a case. This habit of assuming the Prosecutor side of the case is the most accurate should of died out among Conservatives a long time ago. WE know some Prosecutions are politically motivated, why not this one?
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.