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.

[tjg]

Good post. Help me out here:

Libby told the FBI his conversation with Cooper went like this:
" LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true."

Cooper said it went like this:

"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.""

When a person says "I heard that" it implies you don't necessarily belive it.


Where is the perjury and making false statements here? Fitz better have more than that, or he's going to look like a complete idiot.

[Torie]

More Andy McCarthy, Libby and Cooper:

Here is what Fitzgerald says in his press release about Libby's alleged lie to the grand jury about what Libby told Cooper:

"Libby advised Matt Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; when, in fact, Libby did not advise Cooper during that conversation that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true. Rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;"

Here is what McCarthy says about it at The Corner:

"FOR MARK -- COUNT FIVE [Andy McCarthy] I know Mark has also looked closely at the indictment, so I wonder what he will think of this.

I regard Count Five as a confusing count. (The same confusion arises elsewhere in the indictment, but it crystallizes, for me at any rate, in Count Five.)

Throughout the grand jury testimony excerpted in Count Five, the powerful impression one is left with is that Libby intentionally misled the grand jury about the state of his knowledge regarding Plame’s employment by the CIA – i.e., what he knew and when he knew it. It’s alleged Libby explained that he told the reporters he had gotten his information about Plame from other reporters. More importantly, Libby testified that this was not because he was misremembering how he learned the information, and not because he was trying to avoid discussing what he knew from government sources. Rather, Libby flatly asserted that he said this to reporters because “it was a fact” that his source was a reporter (assertedly, Tim Russert).

So you’d figure the government’s theory of perjury in Count Five must be that Scooter was misleading the grand jury about the state of his information (i.e., that the prosecution is saying his real sources were the numerous government officials with whom Libby had spoken about Plame long before he spoke with Russert).

Yet, that’s not what Count Five alleges. When it finally gets to explaining the perrjury charge, it contends (in paragraph 3 on page 22) that Libby’s statements are perjurious only in that they falsely report the substance of Libby’s single conversation with one particular reporter, namely Matt Cooper. The count does not allege that Libby was tyring to mislead the grand jury about his general state of information.

I find that odd. It seems to me that this reduces Count Five to the old “he said / she said”: i.e., whose story do you believe – Cooper’s or Libby’s? It seems to cancel out the whole point that Count Five seemed to be building to: namely, that Libby was not being straight with the grand jury about what he knew and when, wholly apart from whatever he reported about his conversation with Cooper.

As I said, this is something of a recurrent theme. There are times -- not all the time, but sometimes -- when the indictment makes the case appear to be much more about who is relating conversations more accurately – Cooper and Russert, or Libby – than it is about a general scheme by Libby to obstruct justice. That sure places a lot of the government’s chips on the credibility of the reporters’ recollection of a few key conversations. I would have thought the crucial thing would be whether Libby was generally honest with the investigation about his knowledge of Plame’s classified status."

If that is all Fitzgerald has, the case does strike me as very weak. It would be reasonable that either 1) Libby thought then he said "I heard it too," that he meant from reporters, and who knows if they know the truth, because that is reasonably implied from the context of the conversation, or 2) Libby did say that, and Cooper forgot because it added nothing of any substance to his story.

Moreover, just why would Cooper want to change "I heard that too," to "I heard that from reporters and I don't know if it is true." Even if Libby did know it was true, and not from reporters, lying to Cooper is not a crime, and Libby recounting the conversation the way Cooper remembered it, would not put him in any legal jeapordy. Moreover, Libby using his version of what he told Cooper as proving that in fact was his state of knowledge, is hardly convincing excupatory evidence, since he would have every reason to spin it that way to Cooper.

I can't see proof beyond reasonable doubt on this one, and I don't see how there could be any more evidence as to whose version of the Cooper conversation is correct, unless it was taped, or Libby kept notes that refute his verion. Neither appears to be the case.

[ironman]

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."

No he's not going to claim that. I think he will certainly claim that he did know it when he was speaking with the reporters. It's the GJ that is misinterpreting what he said to them. Libby mislead the reporters, and he tried to explain to the GJ how he did that (what he did say, what he "thought" and what he wanted the reporters to believe), but he didn't do it very well and they can't get it.

Consider this analogy:

Spectator sees marathon runner struggling badly. Really bad.

Runner remembers coach always tells him to think positive thoughts. So he says in his mind: "I feel good. I feel good."

Afterwards, runner says to race offical, "I thought I was feeling good." Official believes he is lying because all the spectators are telling him the runner was feeling bad. But runner is telling the truth, he really did think in his own mind he was feeling good.

Do you get my point now?

Fitzgerald is like an offical that interviews the runner and spectator who's stories differ, but believes the spectator because all the other spectators saw the runner feeling bad. But in fact, the runner really did think "I feel good."

[HawaiianGecko]

	Something no one seems to acknowledge is that it is possible he didn't lie. Telling an untruth is NOT a lie. If that were so the entire world has been a liar for thinking the world was flat at one time. It is entirely possible that Libby remembers Mr. Cheney telling him, remembers Judith Miller telling him also Matt Cooper, the guy at Defense Intelligence and the half dozen others. In fact a reporter may have told him this in 1999 let's say.  He simply may have forgotten the sequence.  I have recounted vividly listening to a song in 1968 that wasn't published until 1973. Was I lying? The prosecutor can prove that Libby knew in advance of his meetings with reporters, but he's going to have a very hard time convincing a jury that he lied unless he can come up with and prove a valid motive for doing so. In my opinion, humble as it may be, the fact that it is so easy to prove Libby was factually inaccurate IS his defense. Nobody in their right mind and darn sure not a lawyer like Libby who is intelligent enough to be the chief of staff for one of the most powerful men on the planet, is going to walk into a grand jury and tell a lie that is easily proven by conversations three reporters, four other government officials, the Vice President of the United States, his own emails and hand written notes. That proves to me that he didn't lie and just told a factual inaccuracy.

!

 

[oceanview]

it just another small, but significant, pointer to what we already know - each of these members of the press - Russert, Cooper, Miller - knew who Wilson's wife was before they talked to Libby and Rove. Notice Cooper is careful to simply say "his wife" - not "his CIA wife" - clever.

[Cboldt]

Afterwards, runner says to race offical, "I thought I was feeling good." Official believes he is lying because all the spectators are telling him the runner was feeling bad. But runner is telling the truth, he really did think in his own mind he was feeling good.
Do you get my point now?

I got it to begin with.

Given only the facts as laid out in the indictment, I think it's a lame defense. That's because I generally recall whether or not I looked something up for myself, on my own initiative, vs hearing it or reading it from somebody else. Especially so when it's a -HOT- matter.

I can recall whether or not I've performed independent research on a subject I've posted here at FR vs. the ones where I just parrot what other posters have asserted.

If it goes to trial, it will be up to the jurors to decide if Libby's amnesia defense is believable.

[SERKIT]

>>> I was wet, smelling of chlorine.

All I can visualize it the Seinfeld episode about George's "shrinkage" after being caught naked just after swimming. The whole article is self-serving and TMI (Too Much Info). Now, can someone give me instructions on how to pluck out my mind's eye?

[okie01]

He/she isn't named, just referred to as Source A.

"Official A" in the Libby indictments is clearly Karl Rove. His name was not mentioned "to protect the innocent".

"Official A" should not be confused with Novak's Source #1.

[okie01]

Thanks for posting the relevant part of the indictment.

It would appear that Libby was recalling what was running thru his mind at the time that he was talking to Cooper, rather than the specific exchange -- an altogether reasonable recollection.

It's very difficult, to me, to consider this relatively minor difference in recollection as the basis for a "lying to a federal officer" charge.

It seems technical to the point of bordering on fabrication.

[AmishDude]

Libby responded with words to the effect of, "Yeah, I've heard that too."

So I guess this will make Cooper a witness for the defense.

[oceanview]

we still need to find out about how Fitzgerald obtained those notes - if he got them from Libby, and the main focus of the charge against Libby is that he lied to the GJ/FBI about the timeline of when he knew Wilson's wife was CIA, and that timeline is established by his own notes freely provided by him, then it appears to be a case of Libby simply not reviewing those notes well enough before testifying. to testify willfully contrary to notes which he himself provided, would be essentially be "judicial suicide" - you would have to believe he wanted to be indicted.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" 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."

Absolutely.
President Bush has the bully pulpit- not the media.
But, you wouldn't know it by the behavior of the White House.
Especially in the so called " Communications " Office.
Every day Scott McClellan is rolled by the likes of Terry Moran and Dana Milbank , as they set the agenda.
It is beyond comprehension and very troubling that no one in the White House has yet realized how abysmal and damaging these daily press briefings are to the President.
Ping me if you ever hear the phrase " McClellan was masterful today in his handling of the press. "

[AntiGuv]

That fifth count sounds exceedingly weak to me as well, but what about the other four?

...lying to Cooper is not a crime...

Lying to Cooper should be a duty. :)

[mommybird]

It makes you remember how good Ari was.

[Torie]

The rest of it seems to be that Libby lied about his conversations with Russert and Miller too. There does not seem to be anything about Libby lying to the Grand Jury about what he knew about Plame when, and from whom. That allegation is just used to buttress the allegation that his lying about his conversations with Miller and Russert, because Libby's version of what was said to Russert and Miller, would also mean he lied them, and of course, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone would lie to a reporter, just to Grand Juries.

[MNJohnnie]

It is beyond comprehension and very troubling that no one in the White House has yet realized how abysmal and damaging these daily press briefings are to the President.

They are? I am surprised so many "Conservatives" still take the Dinosaur Media seriously. Listening to the Dinosaurs is the equivalent of listening to radio Tokyo in 1943. After all in the same time the US Economy posted 3.8 GDP Growth, virtually every major published "news" outlet suffered major revenue losses.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Have been trying to work & yard & keep up with thread. Has Woodward made an appearance today? Not too many would seem to want him as he is a voice of reason in this debate.

[Torie]

Let me revise and extend my remarks:

The rest of it seems to be that Libby lied about his conversations with Russert and Miller too. There does not seem to be anything about Libby lying to the Grand Jury about what he knew about Plame when, and from whom. The allegations [about what Libby knew when and from whom are] just used to buttress the [counts that he lied to the investigators and grand jury] about his conversations with Miller and Russert, because Libby's version [as told to the grand jury and investigators] of what was said to Russert and Miller, would also mean he lied [Russert and Miller], and of course, it is not reasonable to assume that anyone would lie to a reporter, just to Grand Juries.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

If the statute did not cover her, then there could have been no crime to investigate.

I still do not understand that. Fitz said he does not investigate statutes, he investigated facts.

I likened it to a neighbor accusing me of illegally watering my lawn on the 12th of October. Even days are my days. Bingo--no law broken, Game, set, match, I win.

But Fitzgerald is saying instead of investigating the water law as it applies to me and the day of the month, He can expand the investigation to anything any member of my household has done

Maybe it isn't always clear cut, but covert or not--that is clear cut. Once it was determined she was not covert (no one has been charged), it should have been over, Be we have paid for this to go on far longer than needed.

[tophat9000]

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

So the gist of the of this is:

Per Matt Copper:" 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."

Vs something to the effect Libby recalling his response as "Yeah, I've heard that too from reporters, not sure."