Scooter Libby Scorecard

The Stiletto ^ | February 14, 2007 | The Stiletto

[theothercheek]

With all the journalists testifying about how and when they learned Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent and anti-war diplomat Joe Wilson’s wife in the perjury and obstruction trial of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., The Stiletto thought that this handy dandy chart would help keep the story straight:

Libby Told Me	Libby Did Not Tell Me
Matt Cooper (formerly with Time Magazine)	Walter Pincus (Washington Post): Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told me
Judith Miller (formerly with The New York Times)	Glenn Kessler (Washington Post): Topic never came up
	Robert Novak (Chicago Sun-Times): Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told me
	David Sanger (The New York Times): Topic never came up
	Tim Russert ("Meet The Press"): Read it in Novak’s column
	Evan Thomas (Newsweek): Topic never came up
	Bob Woodward (Washington Post): Armitage told me

If remembering who said what to whom and when between mid-June and mid-July in 2003 is the crux of this case, then Libby ain’t doing half bad – especially for a man who worked from 6:30 a.m. until 8 p.m. and sat in on a seemingly endless series of daily briefings and meetings about the Iraq war, terrorist threats, the progress of nuclear programs in Iran and Pakistan and assessments of the nation's defenses against biological attack, according to testimony from Cheney's current national security adviser, John Hannah.

Any juror who’s had to sit through meetings and conference calls at work while thinking about his own unfinished projects and fretting about how long he will have to stay after hours to make up for the time wasted will sympathize with Libby. The Stiletto can barely keep her eyes open during the one-hour conference calls she is expected to attend every Thursday between 2-3 p.m., especially as one of the remote participants has a very flat, droning voice that induces near-coma within a minute or two. Though she takes notes on what other people have talked about, if you ask her what this particular participant said – even five minutes after the call ends – she couldn’t tell you under oath or under pain of death.

Libby’s team is so confident that that the prosecution has not made its case, that it reversed course and will not call the defendant or Cheney to the stand.

NOTE: This time I know I put the links in correctly because I found an HTML editor for the chart! But you can go back to the original source to see what else is up there, if you like.

[theothercheek]

Well, the government is claiming that Libby was actively trying to discredit Joe Wilson by spreading Plame's name around to any and all willing media enablers. So far, only two journalists have said that Libby told them about Plame vs. nearly four times that many who said Libby was not the leaker. Of the seven who contradict these two witnesses - really it's 8 because Miller's boss said she never talked about Plame with her - the most important is Russert. Libby claims Russert told him about Plame; Russert claims he did not. It's Russert's word against Libby's - but with all these other journalists claiming that Libby never mentioned Libby's name, then Libby has more credibility than Russert. Besides, who is going to believe that Russert was so out of touch with Beltway bullsh** that he had to learn about Plame by reading it in Novak's column like the rest of us hoi polloi?

[theothercheek]

THe case is supposed to go to the jusry next week, I think.

[pollyannaish]

I can't remember what I said last week.

Your doing pretty good. Sometimes I can't remember what I said an hour ago.

[theothercheek]

I meant to type: With all these other journalists claiming that Libby did not tell them about Plame then Libby's credibility should be higher than Russert's.

[lugsoul]

To clarify, Libby claims that Russert told him about Plame, but that, since his notes reflect that he was told by the VP about a month before, he had forgotten that he already knew and hearing it from Russert he was surprised, as if hearing about Plame for the first time. That's the center of the testimony claimed to be perjurious.

The testimony of others in the OVP, CIA, State, etc. is that Libby had many conversations about Plame, including one three days before Russert supposedly told him "for the first time," where he told Fleischer that it was "hush hush" information.

So it isn't really his word against Russert's. It is his word against the idea that he didn't really forget the fact he was having multiple conversations about, including one where he pulled a guy out of a meeting to talk about it.

[Steve_Seattle]

That [White House conspiracy to "out" Plame to get even with Wilson] is NOT what Libby is charged with.

Tell that to the MSM, who continue to spin the story that way. And tell it to Fitz, who still seems to believe that version of events, despite the testimony of his own witnesses to the contrary.

[theothercheek]

These other people who he might have discussed Plame with presumably have some sort of security clearance (even if low level) and some sort of duty not to divulge such conversations to those working outside the government, and especially not to the media, which would be considered leaking. But it is quite possible that he heard about Plame in passing from the Veep and did forget about it until he says Russell brought her name up. Why not? If I do not pay attention to where I drop my keys - especially if it's not where they're "supposed" to be - I invariably spend 30 minutes looking for them. If I had put them where they belonged or paid attention when I left them where they didm't belong I would not have forgotten where I left them. And then when I find them, I suddenly "remember" that, oh yeah, I put them here this time. Tell me this has not happened to you a zillion times in your life. So what - Libby isn't human?

[Steve_Seattle]

"The testimony of others in the OVP, CIA, State, etc. is that Libby had many conversations about Plame . . . including one where he pulled a guy out of a meeting to talk about it."

The conversations focused on Wilson, not Plame. Plame was a sidebar, at best. At least three reporters testified that Libby never mentioned Wilson's wife. Armitage mentioned it only in passing, in response to a question from Novak. Miller said Libby mentioned it "offhandedly." Rove mentioned it as an aside ("Oh, you heard that too?") in response to a question from Cooper. If anyone at all was "shopping" info about Plame, it was Fleischer.

And even opponents of the administration have pointed out that identifying Plame's role in selecting Wilson for the trip had little if any relevance to Wilson's central claims. Plame was significant only in the fevered imaginations of anti-Bush freaks and self-important and corrupt prosecutors.

[Dave S]

The conversations focused on Wilson, not Plame. Plame was a sidebar, at best. At least three reporters testified that Libby never mentioned Wilson's wife.

What these reporters testified has no bearing on anything. The evidence is that Libby knew about both Plame and Wilson and discussed what to do about them in numerous meetings and these meetings focused on that topic. Fleischer was shopping the story but you forget he was asked to do so by Scooter Libby three days before he says he learned about Plame from Russert. Call me skeptical.

And even opponents of the administration have pointed out that identifying Plame's role in selecting Wilson for the trip had little if any relevance to Wilson's central claims.

It went to showing that Wilson was not choosen for his expertise and that he was not choosen by the Vice President which were the claims being bandied about. I dont know why the White House didnt admit that they outted Plame and that they did it for a specific reason, she and her husband were lying. Also WH should have pointed out that Plame was not a covered agent. Another case of a screwup by the incompetent Bush administration.

[lugsoul]

So, talking about information that is "hush-hush" - a conscious act - has the same significance to one's memory as putting down one's keys - an unconscious act.

I wouldn't count on making that sale to a jury.

Human? Yes, lots of folks 'remembered' conversations later. That is human. The odd thing about Libby's position, to me, is that he maintains that he didn't recall them even after being reminded of them. One, two? Maybe. Multiple conversations that just disappeared into the ether? I think that is a tougher sell. Like I said on another thread - I do believe that if he had come forward, like Rove, and said "oh, yeah - now I remember. I had lunch with Ari and I told him about it, etc.", I don't think Fitzgerald would've charged him.

[OESY]

WOODWARD: What's Scowcroft up to?

ARMITAGE: [expletive deleted] Scowcroft is looking into the yellowcake thing.

W: Oh yeah?

A: As the PFIAB.

W: Yeah. What happened there?

A: They're back together. [coughs] They knew with yellowcake, the CIA is not going to be hurt by this one —

W: I know, that's —

A: — Hadley and Bob Joseph know. It's documented. We've got our documents on it. We're clean as a whistle. And George personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.

W: Oh, he did?

A: Oh, yeah.

W: Oh, really?

A: Yeah.

W: It was taken out?

A: Taken out. George said you can't do this.

W: How come it wasn't taken out of the State of the Union then?

A: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot. But she —

W: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just —

A: His wife works in the agency.

W: — Why doesn't that come out? Why does —

A: Everyone knows it.

W: — that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.

A: Yeah. And I know [e.d.] Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all pissed off.

W: But why would they send him?

A: Because his wife's a [e.d.] analyst at the agency.

W: It's still weird.

A: It — It's perfect. This is what she does. She is a WMD analyst out there.

W: Oh, she is.

A: Yeah.

W: Oh, I see.

A: [e.d.] look at it.

W: Oh, I see. I didn't [e.d.].

A: Yeah. See?

W: Oh, she's the chief WMD?

A: No, she isn't the chief, no.

W: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh yeah, hubby will go."

A: Yeah, he knows Africa.

W:: Was she out there with him?

A: No.

W: When he was ambassador?

A: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [e.d.]?

Audio

Chronolgical Summary

.

[theothercheek]

No, Karl Rove was the real target of this whole thing and "outing" Plame would have been a criminal act that would have forced him to resign just as President Bush'e re-election campaign was getting under way. Except that Plame had not been a covert agent for years and except that Armitage appears to have been the original leaker.

[theothercheek]

Thanks. Now I hope Seattle Steve sees/hears this.

[theothercheek]

I have to tell you that I really don't find it completely implausible that Libby would forget passing mentions of Plame in a slew of other verbiage gushing his way every day. I recently joined a new company with something like 20 offices in the US and 50 worldwide - each of them specializing in something else. My new boss verbally threw torrents of information at me my first day on the job - where to send contracts, who to call about getting my e-mail set up, how to access the company intranet - and then got annoyed on a couple of occasions when several months later I had to ask for a second time some of the stuff she had already told me. But it didn't sink in because I did not need all the info she threw at me until three months later when I had to send my first contract to AP. That's when I absorbed the information and will never have to ask her again. I mean, your brain has to filter out extraneous info so you can concentrate on what's important at the moment - which, for me, was getting my e-mail, voice mail and direct deposit set up on the first day at work.

[honestfreedom69]

The Administration has not distinguished itself in this case even if Libby walks. Fleischer was happy to throw Libby under the bus and he was shown to be a liar. Rove did not have the cleanest hands. The Administration as a whole seemed more than willing to toss Libby overboard.

[honestfreedom69]

All I can say is that if it takes this little to get thrown in prison we all better watch out.

[theothercheek]

I agree with both your comments. Every one in Washington is a backstabber. But at the end of the day, no one broke any laws (including those Libby is actually charged with) so this investigation and trial should never have gone forward.

[Republican Red]

NRO Media blog also points out the following:
http://media.nationalreview.com/

Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order:

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he told John Dickerson (then with TIME magazine) about Valerie Plame. Dickerson denies this.


Fleischer also testified that he told NBC’s David Gregory about Valerie Plame. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert later denied that Gregory ever received the leak.


Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer told him about Valerie Plame. Fleischer denies this.


Bob Woodward testified that he had discussions with Pincus about Valerie Plame. Pincus denies this.


Russert first told the FBI that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that he discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby. He later testified that he could.


NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has yet to testify, but she first said publicly that everyone knew about Valerie Plame prior to Robert Novak’s column. She now denies that she herself knew (and successfully resisted a subpoena).
And now, today, this:

On Tuesday, Jill Abramson, now The New York Times' managing editor, was called first by the defense [...]

Abramson was asked about former Times' reporter Judith Miller's testimony (she had claimed this for a long time) that she had asked Abramson in 2003, when the latter was Washington bureau chief, if she could write a story related to WMD and her recent talks with Libby.

Abramson, as she has done in the past, denied it.

Remind me: Why is Libby the only one on trial for perjury?

[lugsoul]

If the information is only coming one way, you have a point. But Libby wasn't just 'hearing' it. He was saying it, and passing it along to others. It isn't like he never processed it until later.

[Real Cynic No More]

Closing Argument:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: In your deliberations, please consider the hours Mr. Libby spent, every day, working for us. And consider how difficult, even under normal circumstances, it is to remember certain details. For instance, please look at what was said on Thursday, February 1 [pick any appropriate date] during this trial. And look at who said it. Test yourselves during your deliberations to see who remembers and who doesn't. Some of you will get it right. It is likely that others of you will not remember which one of the witnesses said something, or even what was said. Was it Tim Russert? Judith Miller? If just one of you can't get it right without referring to your notes or to the transcript, think about what Mr. Libby was going through with the hours he spent at work, and the multiple interactions with numerous people he had almost every day. Is it appropriate to hold his recollection ability to a higher standard than yours?

Thank you for your service in this trial, where a man's freedom and way of life is at stake, dependent only on how he remembered some specific details. If you don't think that is fair, you must vote for aquittal on all counts.