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 Wilsons 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 Wilsons 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.
Fruit from a poisoned tree/
no way Russert didn't know who Wilson's wife was. not that Libby doesn't have a problem here also because of the notes, but Russert is helping to set the trap for Libby here too by claiming ignorance about Wilson's wife. All 3 reporters are lying about that - they all knew who Wilson's wife was before talking to either Rove or Libby.
Of course they don't.
Ethics is just something for Democrats to accuse their enemies of lacking. They could care less about it otherwise.
It's always a scream for me to hear Kennedy lecturing others on their moral shortcomings. About like Michael Moore being the Weight Watchers' spokesperson.
"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."
I understand what you're saying, but when this case goes to court, the words of someone at a press conference will not be admissible. The latter has no relevance to the crimes for which Libby has been indicted.
So if in the execution of a warrant, police break
into a locked room, or papers, that are not
specified or covered in the warrant. they are
now admissiable as evidence?
"It merely implies he lied to Russert but does not necessarily mean he lied to the GJ."
Russert claims that he and Libby never spoke about Wilson's wife. Libby claims that Russert is the person who told him. Someone is obviously lying. In order to determine who is lying, the content of what Libby claims he told Russert is relevant. Since what Libby claims he told Russert is not factually true, it's an indication that Russert is the one who is telling the truth, and Libby is the one who is lying. I can't make it any more clear than that.
"So if in the execution of a warrant, police break
into a locked room, or papers, that are not
specified or covered in the warrant. they are
now admissiable as evidence?"
How is the above example analogous to what occurred in this matter? No one is claiming that the evidence gathered against Libby (mostly his own statements) was obtained illegally. You're making less sense with each post so I'm bowing out of this discussion.
Libby can testify in court that he intentionally lied to Russert, and thus, the content of his conversation with Russert should not be an indication of who is telling the truth. It will be up to the jury to decide. The fact that what Libby claims he told Russert is not factually true will probably weigh against Libby in jury deliberations (if this case ever gets that far).
"Libby claims that Russert is the person who told him."
Show me where he claims this. Libby states in count 4 para 2: "I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning" after trying to explain why he didn't confirm to Russert. Could this not be interpreted that Libby was trying to say to the GJ: "I [wanted him to] think this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning"
Libby said: "I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning"
One problem is that what's written on the page is different than hearing Libby's actual words. You don't hear the pauses or the inflections in a person's voice.
I interpret the above to mean that when talking to Russert, Libby was learning something (Plame's employment) for the first time. It's certainly open to debate, but the problem is that Russert claims that he had no such discussion with Libby. He claims the conversations were about shows that NBC had previously aired. Fitzgerald seems very confident in his evidence so it's possible that Russert has some documentation to support his testimony. It will be up to a jury to decide.
That sounds like a pretty good supposition. However, it only proves that Russert didn't tell his boss that he and Libby discussed Joe Wilson, not that the discussion didn't take place.
Not at all... the supposed evidence of guilt that
Fitz is indicting Libby with, is based on the
foundation of facts not in evidence, or disallowed
as evidence, if Libbys lawyer is denied the right
to supeona thosde involved n the underlying accusation
that Fitz himself, declared was the basis on his
obstruction & perjury indictments.
Your evidence for this beyond your furvent desire?
If not a mere company which "launders" intel data.
Andrea Mitchell as well as others in the press have spelled that out.
That part made a soundbite on Fox News Sunday. Fitzy said she was "classified". The Democrats were left with the "depends on the meaning of 'is' is" argument.
Correct, and Plame was attending the same Washington cocktail parties with her husband, and he introduced her by her birthname Valerie Plame.
When and where? Are you saying that Russert made a false statement to the prosecutor or the FBI?
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.