Why would a pro-Israel, Jewish neocon Democratic warhawk promote Joe Wilson's hippie pacifism?
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.
A wild guess is that Libby thought he could get away with saying the media told him and since he thought the reporters would refuse to testify to protect their sources.
I doubt it makes any difference in terms of admissibility into a criminal trial. Law enforcement had nothing to do with the taping. Recall it was illegal for Linda Tripp to tape Monica Lewinski but those tapes were allowed in.
I don't think Libby was a Dem operative in any way shape or form, I do though think that he has opened his mouth to his press buddies quite a lot. I think it is now quite obvious that he was very close to Miller and she was apparently willing to spend 3 months in jail to protect him. Everything points to him talking to Cooper and Russert also.
It may just be as the claims have said, and he talked to them with the express purpose of getting back at Joe Wilson, but that is not how this WH has operated in the past.
Therefore Occam's Razor says that he is the main source of information that has leaked out of the WH for some time. It may just be that he has a very close friendship with Judith Miller and some very loose lips, but I think time will tell
I don't see where I have used the term "dem operative."
Please, I do not engage in tinfoil activities.
Novak said his source was "no partisan gunslinger"; someone he identified as an administration official, but not a Republican. Also, he said after the Libby indictment that, when he's free to reveal the name of source, we would all get a good laugh out of it.
IMO, Novak's source was Agent 99's old boss, George Tenant.
I also think we're working too hard looking for reasons to throw Mr. Libby under the bus. I eagerly await his side of this story.
I believe you can refuse to answer, only if you refuse to answer all questions. If you answer one then you are cooked. I could be wrong though. Although Mark Lavin yesterday on Hannity radio opined as I have. Thanks for the input.
One part notification in both states, so it should have been legal for Russert to record Libby without Libby's knowledge. (Link to source on post #28)
Even an illegal recording might be admissible, as with Tripp's recordings of Lewinski.
Oh, I agree with you completely. And what you say is correct, this is a politically motivated fishing expedition (as opposed to the Clinton thing where there was an attempt to define a pattern of past behavior in a sexual harassment case)
The unfortunate thing about it, though, is that the GJ can be COMPLETELY groundless, but...if you lie in front of a GJ, then...you have THEN broken the law.
As you say...the case may be weak, groundless, politically motivated or non-existent. Kind of like speeding on your way to a bank robbery. There is no law against going somewhere to rob a bank (figuratively speaking...say you just decide to do it and are speeding there to do it)
If you get pulled over by the cops for speeding...it is speeding!
"free to reveal" is the key phrase. They prefer not dealing with this in open court, so they'll take other related charges that they can talk about.
Nope. The whole point of the questioning
of Libby by the FBI and the Grand Hury,
were based on the accusations by Wilson
& Plame, that Plames Covert status was
"blown" by an Executive Branch employee.
Their testimony is relevant.
Why would a pro-Israel, Jewish neocon Democratic warhawk promote Joe Wilson's hippie pacifism?
Read the indictment. It all based on the assumption that Libby lied about his conversation with Russett and that he spread the rumors about Valarie. If it can be shown he was not responsible and it was well known about Valaries CIA involvment it blows the case out of the water. It is then inconceivable that Russett would have not known about Valarie's CIA involvement and thus he NOT Libby is Guilty of perjury.
"Read the indictment. It all based on the assumption that Libby lied about his conversation with Russett and that he spread the rumors about Valarie."
Say what?!? What indictments are you looking at?!? The indictments are about Libby allegedly lying to the grand jury and federal investigators. And it involves more than Libby's conversations with Russert. The Feds allege that Libby also lied about the content of his conversations with Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller.
"Nope. The whole point of the questioning
of Libby by the FBI and the Grand Hury,
were based on the accusations by Wilson
& Plame, that Plames Covert status was
"blown" by an Executive Branch employee.
Their testimony is relevant."
I hate to say it, but your ignorance of why Libby was indicted is breathtaking.
"Libby's already owned up that he wasn't telling Russert the whole scoop. Lying to Russert is not material."
I don't understand why so many people are having trouble understanding this point. Libby's statements to the grand jury and investigators about what he claims he told Russert are "material" because they are useful in determining who is telling the truth. Since what Libby claims he told Russert is demonstrably false (that he [Libby] was not aware that Plame worked for the CIA), it can be admitted as evidence by prosecutors who are trying to prove that's it's Libby who is lying and Russert who is telling the truth.
I'm getting Russert, Mitchell, Gregory on MSNBc 2nd station now discussing this.
"I'm getting Russert, Mitchell, Gregory on MSNBc 2nd station now discussing this"
I cancelled my cable tv more than a year ago. It's saved me a lot of needless stress.
Right. Says he lied about getting the information from Russett. Same thing. If Russett lied and did give Libby the well known information about Joe Wilsons wife (right out of Joe Wilson's book) then no lie to Cooper or Miller. It is simply not believable that Russett did not already know about Wilson's wife given his cozy relationship with Wilson and Wilsons remarks about his wife in his book.
It's not based on the wording of the indictments
alone, but on the words and opinions expressed
by the prosecutor (Fitz) made at the press
conference giving voicer to his reasons for
indicting Libby.
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.