What Scooter Libby And I Talked About

TIME Magazine ^ | 10/30/05 | Matt Cooper

[SE Mom]

I was wet, smelling of chlorine. It was July 12, 2003, in Washington, a beautiful summer day, and I had just come back from swimming. All morning I had been trying to reach I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby for a cover story about both President George W. Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's controversial Op-Ed.

[Anti-MSM]

" The Wilson part that really interested Fitzgerald was tiny, as I told TIME readers. Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

This looks like a setup by the MSM and their Democratic cohorts!

[HawaiianGecko]

	Actually, the Libby indictment makes it pretty clear that Fitzgerald thinks she WAS COVERT prior to this whole episode. I'm paraphrasing here but Fitz said "while it is clear that Libby knew she worked for the CIA there was no evidence that he knew she was covert."

!

 

[norton]

"I, me, my, I me my. Buried in this narcissistic diatribe is absolutely no new information."

I thought the tuna sandwich was interesting.

[JustDoItAlways]

Fitzgerald has refered to Valerie Wilson's position as "classified".

Apparently every position at the CIA is "classified" including janitors etc.

So either Fitzgerald has determined that she was not "covert" (as in the law that makes it illegal to out a covert agent) or he thought he did not have to publicly make that determination in Libby's indictment because he is charged with lying to the Grand Jury, Obstruction of Justice, not outing a covert agent.

But there also laws governing releasing "classified information." Of course, it is done everyday and few people are charged and convicted with releasing classified information.

But it is still unethical for someone with security clearance (Libby) to release classified information to reporters (even if was the name of the classified janitor at the CIA or the former but now washed-up agent Ms. Plame.)

Thus, Libby didn't want to get painted with leaking classified information so he lied and hoped the whole thing would just blow over.

Or Libby thought that Fitzgerald might eventually determine she was a covert agent.

[pepperhead]

He's probably writing a book....why else would he be so clammed up?

That might explain part of it. Of course they are not letting him back on CNN right now either.

[the Real fifi]

Ok--then tell me why he would intentionally lie about that when there was nothing wrong about where he got it?

And in any event in March he went before the gj and testified he had gotten it officially--he didn't name all the times he had, but he did acknowledge he heard in his official capacity..Normally, if you recant earlier testimony, there is no perjury. Again, why would he intentionally lie instead of simply having no independent recollection?

[PISANO]

Bush NEVER CLAIMED IRAQ sought yellow cake. Bush claimed that the BRITISH have information that IRAQ sought yellow cake from Niger.

I hate the way REPORTERS use shorthand to tell a story that while accurate, isn't TRUE or FACTUAL.

[pepperhead]

I think he wants to give that impression but I doubt she was Covert.

Yes that is what he did. And the term he used during the press conference was that her status was classified.

[pepperhead]

I believe Fitzgerald exaggerated during his press conference to enhance his indictment of Libby.

No way, he wouldn't do that.(/sarcasm)

[pepperhead]

Thus the obstruction of Justice charge. /sarcasm

LOL

[pepperhead]

Gag order? How else would you poison the jury pool?

Yeah Fitzgerald can't do it all by himself.

[frankjr]

Hey I think Andy McCarthy (former Fed prosecutor & Fitz friend) agrees with me (maybe) on my assessment of the Cooper call (that it boils down to he said/he said) and not some tie in to what Libby knew when.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081211

At a minimum, it is not clear, as evidenced by your's, mine and other's varying interpretations. I can honestly say, every time I re-read the indictment, I find it to be less compelling (and much less so they Fitz's press conference where he was insinuating things that were not in the indictment nor charged). The other things I think that work in Libby's favor (as memory problems vs. intentionally lying): 1) he testified without invoking the 5th, 2) he signed a waiver allowing reporters to testify and gave his personal OK if they called asking for it, 3) some of his own notes are used against him (then why not destroy them beforehand).

As you said, it will be interesting to hear Libby's defense...at least we will then have both sides of the story to judge.

[pepperhead]

An investigator should be clear. This one is not.

I think he even said he isn't going to write a report about this. I don't think he wants to clear if she was covert or not. (s)You know because this is serious. A CIA agents, who's status is classified, has been reveled to the press. This is hurting CIA recruitment. This damaged the CIA. This is just awful. And oh yeah, Libby lied.(/s)

[inpajamas]

For those keeping score on Mr. Fitzgerald's political targets, the count currently stands at 60-plus Republicans vs. 2 Democrats - not counting Mr. Libby.

[gaspar]

Bush fights back by actions, not words. He fights back by television appearances. He fights back by getting rid of that Scott doofus who holds the daily White House briefing. He doesn't score points by doing his "off the record" bit with the NYTimes and other White House press lowlifes who will use words of their own choosing. And he certainly shouldn't diss the blogosphere.

[Cboldt]

"Can you state the paragraph in the indictment where he [Fitzgerald] claims this?"

You made my point by having to put [Fitzgerald] in brackets. Where's the quote from Libby himself? In his GJ testimony he is recalling what he "thought". Is Fitzgerald a mind reader? Maybe Libby did really think and say to himself "I've never heard of Valerie Plame" because that what he wanted Russert to believe.

Obviously, Libby isn't going to out and out say "I knew I looked up Plame's employment with the CIA in June when I told investigators that I first learned of Plame in July conversations with reporters." That would be an overt admission of perjury.

No, Fitgerald is not a mind reader, and he will have to make his case in court. But the contention that Libby did really think and say to himself "I've never heard of Valerie Plame" is counterbalanced by the fact that he cared enough, wondered enough, to go to the effort to call the CIA and ask for himself.

He's going to have to sell the amnesia excuse to the jury.

[gaspar]

Bush fights back by actions, not words. He fights back by television appearances. He fights back by getting rid of that Scott doofus who holds the daily White House briefing. He doesn't score points by doing his "off the record" bit with the NYTimes and other White House press lowlifes who will use words of their own choosing. And he certainly shouldn't diss the blogosphere. It is an old saying but one that every adminstration forgets: "The Press lives by disclosures." (The London Times, 1851)

[gaspar]

Having worked in Washington, it seems that every government bureaucrat feels that he can manage the press. Whether Libby had the OK to blab to the press (and one wonders why an aide to the tight-lipped Cheney was given such freedom), he should have known better. Who did he think he was? Colin Powell?

[Taliesan]

That should have been his first act....determine if the statute covers Valerie Plame. If not, this should have stopped right there. No subpoenas for reporters' notes, no grand jury, etc.

This is the key which is being ignored. If the statute did not cover her, then there could have been no crime to investigate. If there was no crime, there would be no reason for a grand jury.

You could find out if there was a crime committed in about a day by interviewing her superiors at the CIA to find out what her job was.

I'm not like most on this board: if Libby lied to the Grand Jury, he should be indicted. We argued blue-faced that Clinton should have been prosecuted, no matter the underlying reason, for the simple reason that the most humble citizen doesn't get to lie under oath.

Having said that, I think these special prosecuters have a cushy job, with a huge budget and staff, and no boss to report to on a day to day basis, and so they naturally just DO STUFF BECASUE THEY CAN.

If she was not covert, the grand jury was illegitimate.

[fantom]

ya it sure worked well this time. the press HATES bush period.