Withdraw the Libby indictment {Wash Times Ed.)

Washington Times ^ | Nov 17, 2005 | editorial

[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.

[Cboldt]

For all your self-congratulatory wordsmithing, you are unable to change your spots.

Huh? Where did I congratulate myself?

... in other words, the seriousness of the charge trumps the lack of material or testimonial evidence in this matter.

I'm not rendering an opinion as to the truth of completeness of the evidence offered. But if the facts are as set forth in the indictment, I think the case for false statements is valid and strong.

Of course, logic DOES in fact dictate that Woodward's disclosure UTTERLY alters the anlysis of the indictment's validity.

I disagree, and have attempted to show why I disagree. In short, I disagree because I think the guts of the prosecutor's assertion is that Libby didn't tell prosecutors that he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA. Instead, Libby tried to paint himself as just another Joe in the rumor mill. With the charge being of that nature, it matters not whether the other players knew of Plame from other sources, from Libby, or even if everybody but Libby knew before "the story" started cooking in the press.

[Torie]

I think the indictment to stand depends on whether a reporter told Libby about Plame before Libby told some other reporter about Plame. On that turns whether or not what Libby said his conversations with reporters entailed were basically true, or basically untrue, assuming the reporters version of the conversations are true. Even if the indictment stands, getting a conviction will be tough, and if the jury not drawn from a pool of Bush hostile folks, bascially near impossible, from what we now seem to know.

[Cboldt]

I think the indictment to stand depends on whether a reporter told Libby about Plame before Libby told some other reporter about Plame.

The indictment doesn't read like that.

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that: ...

At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions: ...

[list of June contacts with VP, CIA, State Dept. deleted]

Count 2

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003: ...

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA

Count 4

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that: ...

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA

Count 5

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true

Text of Indictment in HTML

[Torie]

Lying to reporters is not a crime. Libby would have had to testify that he was unaware that Plame worked for the CIA until he heard it from Russert (or some reporter). It is not clear that Libby actually testified to that from the indictment, but maybe I missed it. If he did, than I take your point.

[Torie]

There does appear to be one paragraph in count one where "in substance" he was surprised when Russert told him that Plame worked for the CIA. That is it. That is probably where the rubber meets the road.

[Cboldt]

Libby would have had to testify that he was unaware that Plame worked for the CIA until he heard it from Russert (or some reporter).

That is basically what the indictment asserts - or at least that he was unaware that Plame worked for the CIA at the time the conversations in July took place. That is, he could hear a rumor from a reporter in June, check it out with the CIA in June, then have conversations in July, and later on tell investigators that in July, he had no accurate knowledge of Plame, only rumors.

Best I can discern from the indictment, Libby did not disclose his knowledge as a matter of fact (did not disclose his contact with CIA/VP/State) either during his Oct/Nov giving of statements, or at his March giving of sworn testimony. Instead, implies the indictment, Libby asserts that he learnd of Plame (in that timeframe) only by being part of the rumor mill.

Of course there is evidence outside of the indictment, and my comments are based solely on the contents of the indictment.

[AlphaOneAlpha]

In my estimation, here is the necessary investigative direction required to get to the bottom of this entire tawdry affair:
1.Plame and her involvement in this entire fiasco
2.The CIA, its' intentional leaks and new found partnership with it's hereto-for neminis Democrat Party.
3. Joe Wilson, a has been, never was, political prostitute and the biggest already confirmed liar in the entire affair.
4.Fitzgerald himself. Perhaps his work on this was not nearly as good as his supposed reputation.

It appears as though Fitzgerald took for gospel all the accusations and ran off/chased down the supposed perpetrators. But, it looks to me, as it did from the beginning, that the accusations were more bogus than anything else and were just accepted as truth and never verified as true facts to begin with.

[Cboldt]

I would add to your list, why did the WH not assert that there was no outing, and that "darn tootin' we are trying to discredit Wilson."

Instead, the President of the United States adds gravitas to the whole bloody charade by calling it a "serious investigation."