Skip to comments.Hannity Thread - Monday 11/7/2005
Posted on 11/07/2005 12:11:50 PM PST by sofaman
Hannity Time!!! Three hours until the Great One!
If Libby thought the investigation was bogus, then he should have seaid so. The indictment recites a story that paints Libby as having lied to investigators.
So, is your argument that it is okay to lie to investigators? I'm not sure there is entrapment - not on a read of the indictment. Libby learned about Plame, the investigators asked him some questions about where he learned about Plame, and he didn't tell them the truth (so reads the allegations of the indictment). He could have just as easily said, " I called the CIA and they told me, then I spread the rumor around to a buch of dumbass reporters to see how fast the rumor would spread." No crime there.
the only reason the questions were asked by the investigators in the first place, is because reporters who claim to be totally ignorant are saying "hey, we heard everything from Rove and Libby". while it may not be OK to lie to the investigators, if the only reason they were steered your way to begin with is because you were setup by the reporters, and they can be shown to have lied, that means alot in my book.
the case could well have gone the other way - suppose after hearing from Cooper/Miller/Russert that they had no prior knowledge of who Wilson's wife was, that the FBI investigated that claim and found it to be false - would the 3 reporters have been charged with perjury? given that there is no underlying crime here, those lies would have been just as pertinent as Libby's. Fitzgerald didn't investigate that, and would never have charged them.
The investigators asked all the parties. If the stories all match, then they conclude nobody lied. No big deal there.
while it may not be OK to lie to the investigators, if the only reason they were steered your way to begin with is because you were setup by the reporters, and they can be shown to have lied, that means alot in my book.
Well, Libby doesn't deny speaking to reporters, in fact he told the investigators that he did speak to reporters. But Libby's testimony is flawed because he never admitted to investigators that he learned about Plame by asking the CIA - instead, paints the indictment, Libby's testimony is an attempt to finger reporters as the leakers. That fingering lie is a lie whether or not the reporters knew about Plame before they spoke to Libby. I think that's the hangup most people have - they figure if the reporters knew first, then it's impossible for Libby to lie to investigators.
suppose after hearing from Cooper/Miller/Russert that they had no prior knowledge of who Wilson's wife was, that the FBI investigated that claim and found it to be false - would the 3 reporters have been charged with perjury?
If they in fact knew about Plame from Libby, and told investigators that Libby never told them, and the GJ figured that out (Libby testifies he told the reporters, has corroborating evidence, etc.), they yes, they'd be on the hook for lying to investigators.
Fitzgerald didn't investigate that, and would never have charged them.
Actually, he DID investigate that. He asked all of them about their interpersonal discussions, and based on that plus evidence of Libby contact with CIA, concluded that somebody was fibbing.
As for whether or not he would have charged the reporters, he was rather aggressive with threats of criminal contempt, and he has a pending case against Miller in the Holy Land Foundation matter.
until I see some evidence that Andrea Mitchell was questioned, as well as Mandy Grunwald, and anyone else Wilson may have talked to inside his DC circle of friends - I do not believe Fitzgerald investigated the claims that the 3 reporters were totally ignorant of who Wilson's wife was. unless you are telling me that Libby's perjury was "greater" then the reporters. the truth is that both sets of people probably didn't tell the truth - but only Libby got the indictment, because only in his case were the facts on which to base the perjury, investigated and established.
That claim is irrelevant to the charge he is making against Libby. The question isn't whether or not reporters knew before talking to Libby. The issue is what Libby told reporters vs. what Libby told the investigators.
You are focused on "was Plame out" and "who did the outing." This is PERJURY indictment, not an OUTING indictment.
unless you are telling me that Libby's perjury was "greater" then the reporters.
What lies did the reporters tell the investigators?
Well, when Libby claimed some other reporters had already told him, they might have, maybe even years ago!
did the reporters tell the investigators or the GJ that they did not know Wilson's wife was CIA before talking to Rove and Libby? Did they lie? Or better to ask, were their claims investigated?
the entire GJ was a perjury trap - but only for Rove and Libby.
The indictment doesn't have evidence of probing that question, except as I pointed out before, Cooper mentioned Plame to Libby before Libby mentioned Plame to Cooper. Cooper testified thusly.
You keep going back to answer the question "who outed Plame," and I keep trying to drag you back to the indictment, which is "Libby didn't tell the truth to investigators."
The case would be obviously silly if Plame's employment with the CIA is as well known as Jay Leno. But the DEMs drummed up enough noise that "Plame was illegally outed," and the WH went along, even having the DoJ appoint an Independent Counsel, and even to this day President Bush saying "this is a serious investigation." From the point of view of "the system," there is more than a shred of credibility to the investigation.
Your objection is that the investigation is not serious, because it is obvious there was no illegal outing. And I say the time to make that point is before being ordered to testify. As it stood in October and November 2003 (when Libby gave his first false reports), it was a serious investigation - that is a year and half before Miller went to jail over providing testimony.
The latest date alleged false testimony was given by Libby was March 24, 2004. This is months before the dates that Miller (August 12 & 14, 2004) and Cooper (May 21, 2004) were first subpoenaed to testify. The "no crime committed" defense was raised in the amicus brief to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals AFTER it's opinion was issued in February 2005; and the brief was prepared in support of a motion to rehear the appeal en banc. The motion for rehearing en banc was denied, and the SCOTUS denied certiorari.
My point being, the case was serious enough to make it to the Supreme Court.
the entire GJ was a perjury trap - but only for Rove and Libby.
It was also a "testify or else trap," which played hard for some reporters, e.g., Miller and Cooper. Miller went to jail over her refusal to testify, and new law was made at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals regarding reporters First Amendment and common law privilege protection in GJ proceedings, extending the Branzburg case [Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)] from reporters who published articles to those who did not.
DC Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion issued February 15, 2005 ...
Brief by 36 News organizations that no outing crime was committed ...
March 23, 2005 Amici Brief of 36 News Organizations for en banc rehearing
Certiorari denied by the SCOTUS - see P.10, Case Nos. 04-1507 & 04-1508 ...
Libby attached dates to the "being told by others," and those dates weren't "years in the past."
Libby Indictment issued October 28, 2005 <- Required reading
I am not talking about the outing.
my point is, once the case was no longer about the outing - which we both agree did not happen - then the case became about false statements to the GJ/investigators. Who is alleged to guilty of that? Libby is. But should the reporters also be, if they went in there and claimed they knew nothing about who Wilson's wife was before talking to Libby and Rove? The indictment would not contain anything about whether the reporters were asked that - its an indictment against Libby. I would be astonished if the reporters were not asked that basic question - did they answer it truthfully if they said "no, we knew nothing"? There is alot of evidence out there that Wilson was blabbing this all over the place for these reporters not to have known. Were their statements investigated for a possible perjury charge? Probably not, which shows that Fitzgerald's motivation was to make the GJ a perjury setting for only Rove and Libby. Russert could walk in there, and tell the GJ that he didn't know Wilson's wife from a Hooters waitress down the block, and skate - while Andrea Mitchell is busy telling CNBC that "everybody knew". That is the thing I am complaining about.
Sure. But Ccooper's testimony already admitted that.
There is alot of evidence out there that Wilson was blabbing this all over the place for these reporters not to have known.
Were their statements investigated for a possible perjury charge? Probably not ...
Turn the tables, turn the facts around. Make it so Libby did not lie to investigators, but some reporter did. Thr GJ would need to resolve the conflicting testimony. We can't know for sure, but I recall a good deal of specuation here that Miller or Cooper was going to charged with perjury - and that speculation was based on the assumption that the reporters told Libby about Plame, not the reverse.
I hear your complaint, BTW, but it seems to miss the gravamen of the indictment. The indictment stands EVEN IF the reporters independently knew of Plame before Libby called the CIA and made his inquiry.
yes, but it would mean that the reporters should ALSO have been indicted for perjury. Why should the reporters be able to go in there and claim they knew nothing, and not face perjury, when an investigation into whether those statements were false would likely have been successful, given what we know about how many people in that circle did know who Wilson's wife was? Fitzgerald made a conscious decision to let them skate on it. And you are correct, while it would not have changed the factual basis for Libby's indictment - it would have put the entire case in a different light - showing that the reporters were part of a setup to bait Libby and Rove into talking.
So, you think it may be a rope-a-dope kinda thing. 8) I sure would like if that's the case. That's pretty slick. I hadn't thought of that for sure, it would be nice. Libby's lawyer is a fool if he doesn't call wilson, plame, miller, and novak to the stand. Between Libby's lawyer and Fitzgerald, they could sure catch wilson and plame in some lies. ANd added to that the General stating under oath that wilson told him in 2002, a year before the Iraq war, that his wife worked for the "Agency". If you're concerned about your wife maintaining her cover, you don't mention her employment at the CIA in casual conversaion to a military consultant with FOX News. This will be interresting to watch. I sure hope you're right!!! 8)
If they lied to investigators. And that depends on what the investigators asked. And we don't have many of those questions, just those contained in the indictment.
Cooper told investigators that he heard of Plame before hearing it from Libby.
showing that the reporters were part of a setup to bait Libby and Rove into talking.
LOL. Pretty funny. I believe Libby willingly spoke to reporters, for what it's worth. And I'm not defending the reporters either - just pointing out that the indictment stands for the principle that one is expected to testify truthfully, or in the alternative, not at all. Miller took the latter route, and went to jail for her refusal to testify. Libby was under orders from the President to cooperate.
yes, Cooper said he heard it from Rove. that's not the "before" timeframe I'm interested in.
I don't know why you put so little credence into them being baited. the reporters only asked that question because they knew the answer already, that Wilson's wife was CIA. Had they known Wilson's wife to be a waitress, there would have been no context to asking about whether "Wilson's wife had anything to do with his Niger trip". That question only makes sense if you know Wilson's wife is in some position to have effected the assignment - like being a CIA agent in a WMD bureau. these reporters knew exactly what they were doing, and had that been made clear, the entire indictment would be viewed in a different context - or would have included the reporters. after all, if perjury is so important as you say, then its important for the reporters too.
/ shrug / I don't see the relevance of "being baited" when they are in front of investigators. Rove seems to have managed to tell the truth in that venue.
... these reporters knew exactly what they were doing, and had that been made clear, the entire indictment would be viewed in a different context ...
I just don't see that playing one way or the other when it comes to what Libby tells investigators. The indictment does not depend on the reporters being ignorant of Plame before having conversations with Libby.
if perjury is so important as you say, then its important for the reporters too.
We're just going in circles at his point.
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.