Posted on 11/17/2005 2:49:48 AM PST by The Raven
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, ...
--snip
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. ...
--snip Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Who told Bob Woodward?
FITZGERALD: He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. ...Irrrelevant to the outcome of the case ...
FITZGERALD: (continued) And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.That is the only object of the indictment. Although I agree that it is a good defense strategy to turn this into a leak or "outing the agent" case, it is not a leak or "outing the agent" case. That allegation is not made in the charges.
The indictment mentions "corrupt endeavor" often. Does there need to be a "corrupt endeavor" for these charges to be valid? If what Libby did was merely pass on information obtained from Woodward and mistakenly attributed them to Russert, is that a corrupt endeavor?
You are absolutely correct. It is very easy to get lost in all of the minutiae here. But the saliant points are these:
1. Fitzgerald was charged with finding out if any laws were broken in the leaking of Plame's name. (Since she didn't fit unter the IIPA, Fitz had to resort to talking about leaking classified information, and cited the EA of 1917, which most legal scholars say is preposterous.)
2. Fitzgerald indicted Libby because he claims he obstructed and impeting him in getting to #1. The inescapable implication is that Libby was the original leaker to the press, and that he could have busted the conspiracy wide open if he had testified honestly about how he got his info and why he did what he did.
Woodward's (grudging) testimony shows that Fitzgerald fingered the wrong man. Moreover, it shows that Fitzgerald was way behind the curve--two years and seventy million dollars later.
It's like something you know and have always known but can't recall how you learned it. I could not tell you when I first heard clinton was a pig. Everyone knew it and we all talked about it, but who told me?? I can try to answer that and will probably have a bunch of sources. I could probably be charged with lying because I may well have my exact source wrong.
???
A "lie" is relative to its relationship to the "truth", and Fitzgerald got the truth wrong. This is why his case has fallen apart. If Fitzgerald's "truth" is wrong, then Libby's "lie" to Fitzgerald's "truth" is not a lie at all.
"Corrupt endeavor" is a term of art that is derived from 18 USC 1503, Obstruction of justice. The phrase "corrupt endeavor" appears twice in the indictment, and the word "corruptly" appears once. All of these occurances are in the context of Count 1 of the indictment.
If what Libby did was merely pass on information obtained from Woodward and mistakenly attributed them to Russert, is that a corrupt endeavor?
In the context of this case, I would not think that sort of error would be material.
Had Mr. Fitzgerald been interested in getting the true facts on this case he would have investigated how it came that Plame sent Wilson to Niger. Was it politically motivated, Wilson was not a member of the CIA but a political operative. Wilson was deemed a liar after testifying before a senate committee. The bottom line here is that the CIA was trying to pull the rug out from the president's foreign policy. I think Fitzgerald has a lot of explaining to do.
Who cares! VP. A disgusting liberal slut who hooked up with her worthless degenerate husband to purposefully bring down President Bush. The whole thing is a manufactured liberal lie and is the most meaningless investugation I have ever come across.
If the true source was the CIA and Libby wanted to mask that, a corrupt endeavor would be a desire to trick the investigators into thinking the information was derived from reporters. The motive being that unless he deflects the real source he might be guilty of a possible crime.
However, if the true source was not the CIA but actually was a reporter then can a corrupt endeavor occur? He no longer is motivated by hiding the truth of his source.
Heh. Woodward always came across as sort of an attention seeker/grabber to me. He doesn't seem to have any strong political leanings other than being a stir-the-pot-ist. In any case, his timing is great... it's going to rile people up a lot more than if he'd came out earlier.
That's a variation on "there was no outing, therefore there can be no false testimony or statement" objection to the indictment. Fitz insinuated there was an outing, using terms like "employment status was classified" (irrelevant to the indictment) and lots of rhetoric in his press conference to paint a misleading picture that this is a "real" outing case.
Even President Bush contributes to that false impression, by saying "the investigation is a serious matter."
I've read the indictment from front to back with a mental picture of "what if all the reporters knew of Plame as of the year 2000?" and IMO, the indictment still stands for the violations it charges. The charges may fall on evidence not contained in the indictment, or on jury nullification. But, again IMO, the indictment is strong on its face as a matter of legal principle and simple logic; and Woodward's disclosure doesn't alter the analysis of whether or not the charges in the indictment are valid.
I strongly believe in Libby's innocence but I wouldn't trust Woodward with feeding my cat. Every time Woodward goes in the public eye, a s###storm is conveniently created. IIRC, he was the one that stretched out Bush's "I prayed before going to war" to "Bush thinks the war is God's Will" (in a very nefarious way). I'd be careful with Woodward if I were Libby's defense team.
Did Libby ever say which journalist told him about the outing? I wouldn't remember if it were one of the NYTimes screaming banshees, but I sure would remember if it were Woodward.
Where can we get our Free Scooter shirts? This has gone on too far already.
"True source" being what? Of Libby's knowledge or belief? Or of "the leak?"
The false statement charge is the based on the former - that Libby had knowledge or belief from inquiry of the CIA, but Libby tried to hide that the source of his knowledge or belief from investigators. Instead, alleges the indictment, Libby tried to mislead investigators to the conclusion tha Libby obtained his belief from contact with reporters.
However, if the true source was not the CIA but actually was a reporter then can a corrupt endeavor occur?
If the fact pattern is changed so that Libby did not have any knowledge of Plame except what he heard from reporters, then the indictment could not be brought. The indictment depends on Libby having knowledge of Plame independently from conversations with reporters.
Of course it alters it.
A lie has to be about something, and that something is the facts in the case. But we now know that Fitzgerald never had the facts right. So of course Libby's story doesn't match up to Fitzgerald's version of the "facts", because Libby was telling the truth.
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.