Posted on 11/17/2005 2:49:48 AM PST by The Raven
The Editorial and the article it references seem to miss the point that Libby called the CIA himself, in order to learn about Plame, and neglected to tell Fitz's investigators that he knew Plames status as a matter of -fact-, having called the CIA to discern it. That is the guts of the indictment, not "which reporter knew," or "did the reporters know before Libby did."
And to your question, Woodward's comments and letter indicate no evidence of him having spoken to Libby about Plame when the two of them talked on June 23, or met on June 27. And even if they did, those dates are after Libby called and met with the CIA on June 11 and 14 - for the "timeline fixated" folks.
Walter Pincas and his wife are friends with the Wilsons they run in the same social circles. And I just bet so does Woodward.
My understanding is that it is not quite so simple. It is not sufficient merely to prove that the defendant attested to two contradictory things. The prosecution must also prove an intent to deceive. Here is where motive comes into play. The Woodward revelations arguably have an impact on Fitz's ability to prove this.
The indictment itself says that Cooper told Libby about Plame - and not that Libby told Cooper about Plame.
But Libby's indicment is not about who leaked. It is about whether or not Libby mislead or lied to investigators.
Well, we need a catchy slogan that highlights Fitzgerald's hypocrisy. It should point out that Fitzgerald failed to hold himself to the same standard of accuracy in his investigation that he held Libby to in his testimony.
So how do we phrase that concisely in a way that is easy to digest?
No. The indicment is based on confusion between hearing from reporters, and asking (and obtaining) an authoritative answer from the CIA. The indictment appears to assert that Libby didn't disclose to investigators that he had called and met with the CIA in mid-June, asking specifically about Plame and obtaining an authoritative answer. He kept telling investigators "I didn't know about Plame, except what reporters were telling me."
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
But he had to have already known about Plame to specifically ask the CIA for an authoritative answer about her. The perjury charges are for not disclosing the original source where he first learned about Wilson's wife. Libby can't learn something that he already knew, which is really the premise of Fitzgerald's case.
That is the alleged LIE by Libby recited in paragraph 26, is it not?
What does paragraph 23 say?
The perjury charges are laid out with specificity, and amount to the difference between testifying that he knew for a fact (which he did, but didn't admit); and hearing it as a rumor, which is the jist of Libby's testimony - "All I heard was rumors from reporters."
A similar statement appears at paragraph 32.b (page 12 of the indictment).
What is the opening assertion of paragraph 32? Also, compare paragraphs 32 and 33, paying particular attention to the differences between 32.b. and 33.b.
< This makes no sense -- if Libby learned about Plame from woodward, why wouldn't he have already told that to Fitzgerald? >
Why can't we assume that he just was mistaken that it was Woodward and not Russert? Besides, I thought at first he just said that he learned it from a reporter. he can be forgiven not remembering which one. Heck, I don't know what I had for breakfast yeasterday.
But his answers were dependent on the timeframe in question. Of course at some point he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA. We all knew that for a fact before Libby was ever indicted. In Libby's statement, during the timeframe in question, he had at that time only heard rumors from reporters, as opposed to having known about it already through his government clearance.
Oatmeal. Deinitely oatmeal.
I had an egg sandwich on sourdough toast, a couple of sausage links on the side.
Yes. True.
Of course at some point he knew for a fact that Plame worked for the CIA.
The indictment says that timeframe is June 11-14 (FWIW, Woordward asserts his first meeting with Libby that MIGHT have broached this subject, but Woordward's notes and protocol lean toward "no discussion," was June 23 (talk) and June 27 (meet)).
In Libby's statement, during the timeframe in question, he had at that time only heard rumors from reporters, as opposed to having known about it already through his government clearance.
That is what he told investigators, "I only heard it from reporters, and didn't know it as a matter of fact." His timing confusion, in order to win at trial, has to be between "looking it up" himself and hearing it as rumor from reporters. But even that is tough, because he seems to have withheld from investigators that he even bothered to look it up for himself. His testimony (as painted in the indictment) is that the -only- sources ofhis information during the timeframe in question was reporters, and in fact, THEY told HIM, and that's the only way he learned.
Paragraphs 26, 32, and 33 all clearly demonstrate that your assertion about the Libby indictment are just flat false.
Why don't you type them in here so everybody can discern your reasoning power.
BTW, once Fitz had determined there was no covert agent to be outed, he had no business spending $20 million in public money on the question.
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.