Replies

And this is supposed to be damaging to Libby?

EXACTLY- that is absurd, isn't it?

Libby is not being indicted for revealing anything about Plame. He is being indicted for lying about his conversations with reporters to both the FBI and the grand jury. The prosecutor evidently feels that these were intentional misstatements rather than being due to poor recollection.

From the indictment:

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

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;

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

Amazing how accidental misstatements by a Repb are a crime while known false statements made for the purpose of subverting an investigation by a Dem are not. Guess we can call this the Clinton rule of American Politics.

Understand the nature of the indictment- but could it be that Libby (when saying he was getting all this info from reporters) is in fact refering to whether Plame sent Wilson.

LOL- I'm short one cup of coffee to clearly state what I'm thinking.

I don't see the inconsistency between Cooper's recollection and Libby's. When Cooper says that he has heard it, it seems obvious that he meant from the press - Robert Novak's story. Libby would be saying the same thing - he had heard about the Novak story too.

One would not expect that the two would have the same verbatim account, but the two stories are consistent.

Is this all the prosector has?

This is why we need to monitor carefully "crimes against the judicial system" - perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. They are loaded with the potential for abuse.

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.

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.

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."