Posted on 11/19/2005 2:27:27 PM PST by the Real fifi
Well obviously not since every reporter had different sources.
You ought to read the paper occasionally dude. Libby is charged with lying to the investigators and the grand jury in saying that he first heard of Wilson's wife from the media and was merely engaging in banter with other reporters who brought it up in discussions. He neglected to mention that he had requested the CIA and State Departments both for information on Wilson and why he was sent to AFrica. They reported back to him. He was told about Wilson and his wife sending him to AFrica by two different people at the CIA, by one high level person at the State Department and by Vice President Cheney. All four testified to informing Libby of this fact well in advance of when he claimed Russert told him about Wilson and his wife. In addition to their testimony, the prosecutor has faxes from the CIA to Libby and Libby's own notes indicating that he had been told by Cheney. In additoin to all this, Cheney, Ari Fleischer and two other witnesses in the administration claim that they partcipated in meetings with Libby whose focus was how to deal with the claims being made by Wilson and his wife. By denying this prior knowledge and saying that Russert was his source, they allege he was trying to divert the investigation into thinking that the media rather than government sources had informed him. (He and others in the White House couldnt be quilty of crime if they passed on information about Wilson's wife that they got from the press rather than from classified government sources) In addition, Russert flat out says he didnt tell Libby about Wilson's wife. He said the topic never came up in the discussion and that he didnt even know that Wilson had a wife much less that she worked for the CIA until he read Novak's article. I think you will see its a bit more complicated than you stated it. Maybe you might want to read the indictment. Im sure its still available online.
Read it again--It seems to me that he is recounting (a) his recollection of the conversations and (b) his state of mind during them--that is he didn't want to reveal to them that he had heard what they were telling him from other(official) sources, as well.Now, he was working about 16 hours a day during that period, this was really not a big deal, and his recollection seems no worse than that of the reporters involved.
I think this case is exceedingly weak, that once it was clear no one "deliberated" outed an undercover agent, the whole thing should have been dropped.
And I think that if Fitz is smart he'll drop it after talking testimony from more people who knew and takes the kid gloves off in dealing with reporters like Pincus.
"deliberated" should be "deliberately"
I agree with you. We all know one thing for sure, she was not outed in the eyes of either the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, or the 1917 Espionage Act. So why isn't Fitzmas' work over and done? PERIOD. Why is he convening yet another GJ, unless he is just tying up loose end I don't get it and am every bit as confused as you and the rest of the same world.
Yes..and the Administration when asked by reporters just tried to bat back a stupid story by a serial liar..the retaliatory outing bit is doodoo.
Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually -- when the story comes out I'm quite confident we're going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson's wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal...And, there's a lot of innocent actions in all of this... LINK
Now we know that Woodward was specifically referring to a leak he himself received. But how did he know this is how it all began?
Not likely, he started a new grand jury this week. That suggests that more indictments are likely. Perhaps Woodwards source if that person had been interviewed or testified previously. From what I read the other day, Woodward went to source and reminded the source and not the other way around as it had first been reported. Thus the source maybe in some legal trouble depending upon whether he had testifed before or not.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/948
Hat tip to anita.
I do not see the empaneling of a new gj as a neccessary indication of anything except a need to account for some new developments--such as Vallely and Woodward's reports.
As for legal trouble for the source--you assume he was asked about whether he'd disclosed Plame's name and employment to anyone. Given the apparent nature of the investigation, I wouldn't make that assumption.
In any event if it was a former Administration official who told him, it does seem to shoot holes in 2 parts of the case:(a) that the outing was a deliberate retaliation by the WH and (b) that Libby was the first to spread the story.
I dont believe Fitz needs to empanel a new grand jury just to receive new evidence once an indictment has been voted. Appearance before grand jury is only necessary if a new indictment is going to be voted either on the same or different person.
As for legal trouble for the source--you assume he was asked about whether he'd disclosed Plame's name and employment to anyone. Given the apparent nature of the investigation, I wouldn't make that assumption.
Say it was Armitage or Hadley and they had testified before that they hadnt disclosed Plames name and employment, they could potentially be in hot water. Coming forward themselves helps their situation.
In any event if it was a former Administration official who told him, it does seem to shoot holes in 2 parts of the case:(a) that the outing was a deliberate retaliation by the WH and (b) that Libby was the first to spread the story.
Helps the administration but doesnt help Libby in that he's not charged with either of those.
Perhaps with the Vallely and Woodward (and Woodward's source's) testimony the underlying theory of the Libby case--as a practical matter-- is looking weaker and weaker to the SP. It's looking weaker and weaker to me. Try to imagine exactly what his opening statement will be..And how will the jury NOT see the case as a he said/he said with Cooper and Russert and Miller all saying that he didn't rell them anything about Plame?
I understand your argument from a technical point of view, but in practical terms the Libby case is badly eroded by post indictment events.
Getting this tesimony on the record, may give the SP a face saving way to drop the indictment.
Again--I think the source was Armitage who I believe has simply refused to comment, not Hadlwy who has denied it. And again it is far from clear if he was even asked about this rather than some background material--because remember,the entire theory of Fitz' case (per Wilson's story) was that the WH coordinated a retaliatory attack on him, and Armtiage was not in the WH.
I think you are wrong on that. Fitz didnt have a theory of the the case as far as the leak is concerned. He continued to side-step whether or not a crime had been committed saying that Libby's lying and obstruction had made it impossible to tell whether or not a crime had been committed.
Wilson can have all the theories of the case he wants but they are no more meaningful than yours and mine. Libby is being charged with making false statements, perjury, and obstruction.
Dave trade sports just dropped the odds of a Libby conviction from the low 50's to the mid 40's--and I bet those odds will continue to sink.
Inst4ead of nitpicking around theoretical arguments about the indictment, imagine what the opening arguments of the two parties will be.
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.