Posted on 01/29/2007 10:34:34 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Fleischer: Plame came up over lunch
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified Monday that then-colleague I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told him over lunch that the wife of a prominent war critic worked at the CIA.
Fleischer said the conversation happened June 7, 2003, days before Libby told investigators he was surprised to learn about the CIA operative from a reporter. That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial.
Fleischer, who was the chief White House spokesman for the first 2 1/2 years of President Bush's first term, said Monday that Libby invited him to lunch to discuss Fleischer's planned departure from the White House. He said it was the first time he and Libby had eaten lunch together.
They talked about Fleischer's career plans and their shared interest in the Miami Dolphins football team, Fleischer testified. He can't remember who brought it up but he said the conversation then turned to the growing controversy over former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the White House of ignoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.
"Ambassador Wilson was sent by his wife," Fleischer recalled Libby saying. "His wife works for the CIA."
Fleischer said Libby also used the woman's name, Valerie Plame, and told him it was "hush hush."
"My sense is that Mr. Libby was telling me this was kind of newsy," Fleischer said.
Fleischer testified under an immunity deal with prosecutors and arrived in court with his attorneys. He sought the deal because he discussed Plame with reporters. Libby's attorneys plan to argue during cross-examination that the immunity deal makes Fleischer's testimony less credible.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Fitzgerald is like Kramer... on his fantasy, Merv Griffin set.
whatever happened to "I don't specifically recall?" it worked for Clintonistas all those years.
It says in the article that Fliescher and Libby only had lunch together once and the matter came up over that lunch. Given that Fliescher certainly has a schedule that he can refer to to give him the date of his lunch with Libby, it is not too hard to believe that he can say with confidence which day he heard this from Libby.
Looks like a closed-system perpetual-motion legal machine which has cost the taxpayers million$.
I should really tune this one out; worse than a "Days of Our Lives" serial...
Fleischer begins by explaining the duties of the WH press spokesperson: “talking to the press, both formally and informally” and communicating with them in a variety of ways, ... Fleischer is composed and articulate on the witness stand. He handles questions about the “sixteen words” in the State of the Union address with ease. Through late spring, he was asked about it by the press but told reporters there was other evidence that might have supported the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Later it emerged that the information the White House had used “was wrong in its entirety.” http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/?p=213
What? I thought the 16 words were later found to be true and that Bush and Blair are standing by them. Why would Fleischer say this? Are those the blogger's words or Ari's? They are in quotes, so I am assuming Ari said it. More confusing now...
Wait clarify this for me. The initial charge is lying to the Grand Jury about Plames status. But Plame had no status that is a violation of the law. So outing her is not a crime and never was a crime
So in essence, doesn't this amount to nothing more than taking free samples from a store and being charged with shop lifting?
That is pretty much that. The entire trial is about 3 days of time. He says he learned of Plame on one day, and there is evidence that he knew about her 3 days earlier. That's perjury -- if it was intentional.
Libby's defense is that he was so busy with far more important matters that he didn't get the days right and it was unintentional. The defense will make that argument and try to raise a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. The prosecution's case is somewhat unimportant because the defense case, because of its nature, could actually simply stipulate that there is a 3 day discrepancy and then proceed to explain it away.
They will try to do that.
Then what is the charge?
Fitzgerald is required to make a charge in his opening statements at the start of this trial.
And no, it does not matter that the investigation did not find any crime in the "outing" of Plame. That truly does not matter. What does matter, and what the charges are, is that an attempt was made to obstruct or deceive the investigation. Regardless of what the investigation eventually found, or didn't find, one cannot obstruct an investigation.
Visualize it as . . . and IRS audit. You are called in for an audit. During the audit, which finds nothing wrong, you get angry and rip a pencil out of the auditors hand, hurl it at him, hitting him in an eye, and flip the desk over. It does not matter that the audit found nothing. You can't do the other things that you did -- and arguing that none of those things would have happened if you had not been called in for the meritless audit is not going to carry any weight.
I am almost sure someone in the position that Ari Fleisher was in, would keep a daily planner. So he would have the date and time of his lunch with Scooter Libby.
This is still a witch hunt.
The article seems to list the charges:
"That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial."
Not that I agree.
It could be called a witch hunt. But Fitzgerald knows that. I am sure he sat with his staff of people and discussed the entire matter. They believed Libby lied. They believe it was intentional. The jury may not, but they do. And then know that it had no impact on an investigation that found nothing.
But it is, in their view, perjury. They can persuade themselves that they are referees in a basketball game and there are 15 seconds left to play and one team leads by 30 points, and there, right there in front of them, one player elbows another to the stomach.
No, let's back up. One player didn't elbow another, that's too extreme. One player was "over the back" of another on a meaningless rebound.
Referees are not supposed to care what the score is, how much time is left, or who is playing. They are supposed to call fouls when they see one. They could have let that over the back foul go, but in purest form they are not supposed to.
So the prosecution team made a choice and called a foul.
Shades of Martha Stewart, and she spent time in prison for it.
I'm sure he would have a planner too. But I am still skeptical of the idea that all these people can pinpoint what was said (and in some cases by whom) at particular occasions. They interacted with multiple people aware of the information, and probably more than once.
I'm sure he would have a planner too. But I am still skeptical of the idea that all these people can pinpoint what was said (and in some cases by whom) at particular occasions. They interacted with multiple people aware of the information, and probably more than once.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald knew that no crime was committed.
As I recall, Bob Woodward "outed Plame" before Libby did, and Fitzgerald instructed Woodward to keep quit about it so he could continue his "investigation" of a non-crime.
Fitzgerald's goal is to entrap Bush or Cheney official(s). What going on here is prosecutorial malfeasance.
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.