« Is Katie Couric Joking About "Jocular"? | Main | You're Damn Right I Ordered The Code Red! »
We Help The Editors At The National Journal
Murray Waas, who has done some terrific work on the Libby case, recently provided a new piece in the National Journal. He focused on July 12, when I. Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and press relations aide Catherine Martin discussed what to tell the press about Joe Wilson.
One of his central points is that, per Libby's testimony, Cheney authorized Libby to disclose something to the press. Libby testified that he was meant to discuss facets of the still-classified CIA account of Wilson's trip to Niger. However, Mr. Waas tells us that, in fact, Libby did not discuss the details of Wilson's trip to Niger but instead called Matt Cooper of TIME and Judy Miller of the NY Times and discussed Ms. Plame.
It is a tale well told, but it founders on the rocks of reality. Here is Mr. Waas, with my emphasis added:
On the plane ride back to Washington from Norfolk on July 12, Cheney strategized once again with Libby and Martin as to how to discredit Wilson's allegations, according to people familiar with the federal grand jury testimony of both Libby and Martin.
...Aboard Air Force Two, Cheney, Libby, and Martin discussed a then-still highly classified CIA document that they believed had information in it that would undercut Wilson's credibility. The document was a March 8, 2002 debriefing of Wilson by the CIA's Directorate of Operations after his trip to Niger. The report did not name Wilson or even describe him as a former U.S. ambassador who had served time in the region, but rather as a "contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report made no mention of the fact that his wife was Valerie Plame, or that she may have played a role in having her husband sent to Niger.
Cheney told Libby that he wanted him to leak the report to the press, according to people with first-hand knowledge of federal grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case, and federal court records.
Cheney believed that this particular CIA debriefing report might undermine Wilson's claims because it showed that Wilson's Niger probe was far more inconclusive on the issues as to whether Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The report said that Wilson was restricted from interviewing any number of officials in Niger during the mission, and he was denied some intelligence information before undertaking the trip.
...According to a court filing by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, Libby also testified to the federal grand jury "that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in the place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the National Intelligence Estimate [on Iraq] and Wilson. [Libby] was instructed... to [also] provide information contained in a document [he] understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson."
...Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.
During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said virtually nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson. [Editor's note: This sentence is worded differently than in the original version posted on January 12, 2007.]
Blogger's note - they may have changed it, since my upcoming criticism has been brewing since PollyUSA noted this problem over the weekend, but they did not change it enough! Here is the original formulation:
During both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said absolutely nothing at all about the March 8, 2002 CIA debriefing report regarding Wilson.
"Absolutely" nothing has been changed to "virtually" nothing, but that won't salvage this - here is Judy Miller's account of her testimony regarding the July 12 chat with Libby:
My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives.
So let's see - Cheney focused on the report's description of Wilson's restricted access to Nigerien officials; Ms. Miller testified that Libby launched into a denunciation of Wilson's account based on his limited access to Nigerien officials; and we are meant to conclude that Libby is lying?
A further point to ponder - despite Cheney's central role in this fateful July 12 conversation, Special Counsel Fitzgerald had decided not to call Cheney as a prosecution witness (instead, the defense is calling him). Just how critical is this July 12 chat to Fitzgerald's case if he does not want to call one of the key participants?
ADDENDUM: Let the skeptics be reassured - in a ruling denying the defense access to some of Ms. Miller's documents, the judge assured them that her published account was a reliable substitute.
UPDATE: Murray Waas re-opens this at the Huffington Post, and doubles down:
Almost immediately after disembarking Air Force Two, once back in Washington, D.C., Libby made three telephone calls to two journalists: Matthew Cooper, then of Time magazine, and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.
But during both of those conversations, according to the federal grand jury testimony of both Cooper and Miller, Libby said virtually nothing at all, if indeed anything, about Wilson's report back to the CIA.
Rather, Miller and Cooper testified that Libby intensely focused on the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, and that she had been responsible for sending her husband on his mission to Niger.
For heaven's sake - Matt Cooper's testimony (or at least, his version in TIME) was that it was *Cooper* who raised the Plame topic and linked her to the Niger trip, not Libby:
On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated.
And let's excerpt the rest of Judy Miller's version of her July 12 exchange with Libby:
I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife. In my notebook I had written the words "Victoria Wilson" with a box around it, another apparent reference to Ms. Plame, who is also known as Valerie Wilson.
I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I was not sure whether Mr. Libby had used this name or whether I just made a mistake in writing it on my own. Another possibility, I said, is that I gave Mr. Libby the wrong name on purpose to see whether he would correct me and confirm her identity.
I also told the grand jury I thought it was odd that I had written "Wilson" because my memory is that I had heard her referred to only as Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether this suggested that Mr. Libby had given me the name Wilson. I told him I didn't know and didn't want to guess.
With the understanding that I would attribute the information to an administration official, Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract. Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A.
Ms. Miller might have called others about Ms. Plame; Ms. Miller might have run a false name past Libby to trick him into correcting her; and yet it is Libby that was "intensely focused on the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer"? This is fantasy.
As to Mr. Waas overarching theme, it is that Mr. Libby was very careful and cautious with classified information; his implication is that Libby would only have divulged information about Ms. Plame if instructed to do so.
That would be especially compelling if Libby knew her status was classified. However, there is that pesky footnote from Fitzgerald, when he told the judges overseeing the Miller and Cooper subpoenas that "To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."
Troubling - it is very hard to defend Mr. Waas on this, since he surely knows better.
get em TM...good job!
Posted by: windansea | January 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I had a lot of help, and would like to thank PollyUSA, cboldt, and Patrick Sullivan.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | January 17, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Now, I've been following this story even when the stories were few and far between at the beginning, so I feel rather well versed on this whole thing.
Personally, I have trouble seeing Fitz's case. I can't imagine what on earth a bunch of DC residents, posing as federal jurors, are going to find.
I find the case against Fitz, lying .. err .. prevaricating .. err .. misleading on some of his filings to the Federal Appeals Court, a far better and understandable case.
Posted by: Neo | January 17, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Mr. Libby described it as the product of a simple miscommunication between the White House and the C.I.A.
most likely the truth for the non BDS infected
Waas is an egotistic weasel
Perhaps Murray Waas is merely channeling Heinrich Himler.
or is that egoistic? egostistical?
anyway...I hate the guy
"Troubling - it is very hard to defend Mr. Waas on this, since he surely knows better."
He does. He's generating traffic to his site, keeping Cheney as the core attraction. Cheney sells, Libby doesn't. Pointing out that a bipartisan panel of Senators already debunked Wilson kills the story.
What's left out is that "Cheney" only reponded to Wilson. There were several ex-officials attacking the war pre-war, challenging this or that, never that they thought Iraq didn't actually have WMDs. Why are they different? They didn't say Cheney hid information. Wilson said that and implied that. Wilson didn't expect a response? Wilson has the right his statements go unchallenged?
Fitz will try to make this a narrow leak, the defense will give context about the range of people who knew about Wilson & wife.
But the key figure will be...Marc Cooper.
Not what he was told, but what he forgot...
Posted by: Javani | January 17, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Forgot what he knew? Come on...more!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 17, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Bravo, Tom!
Posted by: clarice | January 17, 2007 at 11:42 PM
The strangest thing is that while Miller mentions items in her notes that supposedly show Libby discussed Miller in the June 23 (Wife works in bureau?) and July 8 (Wife works at Winpac) meetings, not only does she not claim Libby "intensely focused on the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer," in the July 12 meeting, she doesn't give a single example of anything Libby said about Plame. The closest she comes is the "Victoria Wilson" discussion, but she doesn't say Libby gave her the name, or that it was definitely discussed.
Posted by: MJW | January 17, 2007 at 11:57 PM
I just read your link to prospective jurors...
Judge Walton had a funny instruction this morning to the Swarthmore/Emory graduate who has made it into the next round. "Continue to not listen to the news or read the paper," said Judge Walton. The next prospective juror, a database administration, answered affirmatively to the question of whether he "knew" any of the attorneys in the case. He said he "knew" prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from a news conference Fitzgerald held 15 months ago on the day Scooter Libby was indicted. The prospective juror said he didn't mean to imply he "knew Fitzgerald personally." Upon further questions by the judge, this man said his wife works in the criminal division at the justice department and added that a friend of theirs is a federal prosecutor in D.C. During questioning by the defense, Libby's attorney asked the man, "Do you know any defense lawyers?" The man paused and said, "Uuhhhh, no." However, he said he would be able to decide the Libby case fairly and based solely on the evidence presented in court. So, he made it to the next round as well.
But really people, seriously...there is NO BUBBLE in the beltway, none at all. If this isn't proof positive of the incestuos and isloated nature of Washington, I don't know what is. Flipping Peyton Place times SILLY and GROSS.
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/17/33073.aspx
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 18, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Schuster too, because serious reporter seems to thinks this embarrassment it a romp!
"..but what he forgot"
"Forgot what he knew? Come on...more!"
Let me word that better,
"...but that he forgot."
Not the what, welfare reform
But that he forgot about it.
Memory defense exhibit #1...Marc himself.
Posted by: Javani | January 18, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Javani
AH...I have always felt that was a sticking point ( the lefties have never seen this as a problem - they said it wasn't material or something), and so you've made Coopers bad memory exhibit A for the defense. Touche'
Jury selection is very important but I confess I am completely unaware of how they do this. Well, in high profile cases like this with big price tage, they have psychologists and body language specialists etc--still, it's a mystery to me.
8 out of 36 --and one or more of these may finally be struck preemptorily --told you 2-3 days was a pipe dream.
Posted by: clarice | January 18, 2007 at 12:13 AM
TM I emailed Lance to put the url for this on the MBA site, but he still needs you to put a category feed on your Libby posts. Thanks.
In my previous comment, I, of course, meant: ...supposedly show Libby discussed Plame in the June 23 ...
Posted by: MJW | January 18, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Tom: Good post. Few minor comments/questions on the periphery:
1. IHHO, did Libby lie or not? Please guess with the proverbial gun to head.
2. your further point (that prosecution did not call Cheney) does not say much. Regardless of what you think/whose side you are on, given the belief of FBI and SP that there may have been some Cheney/Libby collusion, calling Cheney would not be expected of prosecution.
3. Classified: I have never thought that Libby or Cheney planned to deliberately expose a classifed CIA operative to advance their agenda. Yet it is also COMPLETELY understandable that once the bruhaha of the leak investigation came up that Libby and Cheney might want to minimize embarrasment or even potential prosecution by lying.
4. General: Cheney thought that we might find WMD 6 months after the invasion. FINALLY, the administration admitted that there were likely none. Something is not quite right with him. He has some wish fullfillment going on...
Posted by: TCO | January 18, 2007 at 12:41 AM
"BTW, you are confusing the Bush adminstration with your Clinton adminstration. CLINTON KILLED FAR MORE INNOCENT IRAQIS THEN BUSH COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
And when the liberals like madeline Albright were asked why they needed to kill 500,000 Iraqis children by 1996? Albright stated that she thought the price was worth it."
You're a lying sack of crap on so many accounts. There not 500,000 dead as a result of the Oil for Food program. The program was instituted because of the draconian policies of the Bush admin in 1990 following Gulf War I which put the lives of many at peril to keep Iraq from militarizing again.
So blow it out your fat wannabe Patton butt.
"Are you really that stupid? Do a little more research you idiot. Hussein got in bed with the Jihadists during the Clinton years. He initiated Sharia law and started a massive mosque building campaign throughout Iraq."
Your full of shit. How does one argue against stuff you pull out of your butt.
Get an education you little twit
Patton? What is that? You fancy yourself a military strategist. Will, pinhead, did you foresee that we would be where we are in Iraq today? It was childs play to do so. One must assume that you are of extremely limited intellect or you just did not care that the invasion of Iraq would uncork this cauldron of death.
You are one f---ed up Patton-wannabe wuss.
Posted by: BTW | January 18, 2007 at 12:57 AM
That's you're full of shit. But of course its your shit.
SMITE (heh)!
You didn't even include my favorite, unimportant yet misleading and wrong bit:
But Libby and Miller enjoyed a long professional relationship and also shared a personal friendship.
Posted by: MayBee | January 18, 2007 at 01:45 AM
Here's something I hadn't notice before which I find interesting. In the obstruction count, the factual basis for the Cooper and Miller charges are:
b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
Notice the Cooper charge has a rather clause: rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The Miller charge has no such clause. So, presumably, Libby would be guilty if he didn't even mention Plame to Miller on July 12. I mentioned earlier that Miller doesn't specifically claim he did in her article about her grand jury testimony.
I'm curious to see how the verdict form will be worded.
I had the misforturne to have my remote land on MSNBC during Chris Matthews' show last evening. He was discussing the Plame case with a bunch of reporters that qualify as experts in his mind.
Matthews was giggling like a teenage girl when he said "this jury does not like Cheney" hee, hee, hee.
I hope he gets publicly nailed at this trial, he is pathetic.
Note to self: never turn remote to MSNBC.
Posted by: kate | January 18, 2007 at 05:00 AM
BTW, FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).
So Madeline Albright herself confirmed 500,000 dead Iraqis due to Clintons policeis by May of 1996.
Do you deny these quotes? Do you deny Clinton and the left killed all those Iraqis because they said Saddam had WMD?
Posted by: Patton | January 18, 2007 at 05:30 AM
BTW, you may want to review the UN directors who resigned during the Clinton years in protest over Clintons policy of starving the innocent Iraqi people while allowing Saddam to build palaces and masques for himself.
These are actual UN diplomts that actually resigned due to the gulag Clinton created in Iraq.
UN aid coordinator for Iraq resigns in protest at "human tragedy" of sanctions
By Chris Marsden
The resignation of two senior United Nations officials this month, in protest against the continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq, has caused political embarrassment to the US and British governments and their policy of maintaining the embargo on the Persian Gulf nation. It has once again brought to public attention the enormous suffering being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the administrations of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President Bill Clinton.
Count Hans von Sponeck is a German career diplomat. He resigned his position as UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq and director of the oil-for-food program on February 13. He had occupied the position since the resignation of his predecessor, Denis Halliday, a former UN assistant secretary-general, who quit the post in September 1998 under similar circumstances. Doctor Jutta Burghardt, head of the UN World Food Program in Iraq, followed von Sponeck the next day.
Under the terms of Clinton supported UN resolutions, they can only be lifted when Iraq proves to the UN Security Council that it has not only rid itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles.
Von Sponeck said of the sanctions, "As a UN official, I should not be expected to be silent about that which I recognise as a true human tragedy that needs to be ended. How long [should] the civilian population, which is totally innocent in all this, be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done? The very title that I hold as a humanitarian co-ordinator suggests that I cannot be silent over that which we see here.
You guys were killing far more Iraqis, except you BTW singled out the innocent Iraqis, especially the children to be starved and denied medicines, etc.
At least Bush has gone after the guilty, scum terrorists.
It's hard for me to imagine any serious journalist blogging at Huffpo.
Well there's Greg Gutfeld. He's seriously funny.
Could it be that the Wilsons, and their knowledge...
I'd like to finish reading the article but I get to this point and the laughing goes out of control. Really TM, you might have warned us.
Posted by: sad | January 18, 2007 at 08:35 AM
Gutfield's hilarious! Pointedly hilarious.
I don't see him pretending to write objective political pieces, though. If Waas could make me laugh (intentionally)....I would ascertain that to be of good quality.
While I'm sure it comes as no surprise to JOM readers, there's a lot of "wishful reporting" surrounding this case. Taranto discussed this contagion yesterday in the context of our favorite Vietnam war hero:
Standards of Truth
The Week in Review section of the New York Times this Sunday featured an essay by Bob Morris on political candor, titled "Truth Be Told . . ." Check out his examples:
John Kerry got similar treatment last fall when his "botched" joke suggested that hard-working students don't end up in Iraq, even though many people do see the military as a last resort for people whose options don't always include a college education.
Now there are two ways in which one could defend the truth of Kerry's infamous statement: One could argue that it was factually accurate, that the military really is made up of stupid losers (the Charlie Rangel position); or one could argue that it was candid--that is, that Kerry was expressing his own prejudices, and his later backpedaling was deceitful (our position).
Morris, however, credits Kerry with neither accuracy nor sincerity. Instead, his defense of Kerry's statement is that "many people" do see things the way Kerry said he did. That is to say, by the Times's standard, expressing other people's prejudices is a form of truth-telling.
Posted by: capitano | January 18, 2007 at 08:45 AM
kate:
It is all I can do to watch Matthews because of his blatant hatred of Dick Cheney. He persists in pronouncing his name in a derogatory fashion and holds him responsible for the Iraq war. There are out and out lies being promulgated on his show by Schuster and Libby has been bashed repeatedly. Not only are they not promoting the truth, they are totally distorting the case. Their timeline and spooky music is childish and annoying.
Posted by: maryrose | January 18, 2007 at 08:45 AM
Waas is surely deserving ridicule for the 'intensely focused' bit, but Judy testified:
'...Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger. He said it was unclear whether Mr. Wilson had spoken with any Niger officials who had dealt with Iraq's trade representatives.'
I still say he's criticizing the July Op-ed, not the debriefing ('report') he gave to the CIA.
He's using that to show the Op-ed isn't truthful. Probably telling her that (1) Wilson didn't talk to anyone currently in the government anyway, and that (2) someone who used to be in that government told him there had been Iraqis interested in uranium.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | January 18, 2007 at 09:22 AM
-- but Judy testified: '...Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report' ... I still say he's criticizing the July Op-ed --
In the same article, Judy uses the term "essay" to refer to Wilson's op-ed. The fact that she uses both terms, "report" and "essay," doesn't authoritatively dispose of your contention, but it is an aspect of Miller's "tell all" that points to Libby's July 12 criticism being on Wilson's report rather than on his op-ed "essay." She didn't write "Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's essay."
Posted by: cboldt | January 18, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Something is not quite right with him. He has some wish fullfillment going on...
sounds just like you TCO
Posted by: windansea | January 18, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Clarice, it's really wonderful to see another lawyer admit to being mystified by the jury selection voodoo. I always felt it was my major weakness as a trial lawyer, and it was the main reason I preferred federal jury trials to jury trials in the California Superior Court system. (In the latter, voir dire was pretty much an open-ended, unrestricted exercise, and one was expected to glean all sorts of vital information from the prospective jurors through subtle mind games.) I spent one hell of a lot of client money on some astonishingly expensive jury consultants, and to this day I can't say whether any of them was worth a dime. The one ironclad conclusion I came to was that, when defending any civil action, you should never, ever, allow a postal worker to sit on the jury.
For this poor fellow BTW, I think I should pass on my dear, sainted mother's admonition that "Obscene speech is the unfailing hallmark of the inarticulate motherfucker." It appears that BTW has been horribly flogged by the undeniable facts adduced by Patton. Over to you, simpleton.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 18, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Posted by: TCO | January 17, 2007 at 09:41 PM
This is one of the most inane arguments that has been made in this whole thing. First, it is not a crime to pass on information that is classified if you don't know that it is classified when you pass it on. Second, to be prosecuted under IIPA you have to know the information is classified and the person has to have served overseas within the last 5 years. It doesn't matter where you got the information from a government source or a private citizen, it matters if you knew it was classified at the time you passed it on.
Libby had no reason to lie about how he learned the information because no one told him it was classified, and even if he knew it was classified, admitting to telling reporters that he was hearing it from other reporters (which is what his testimony in regards to Miller and Cooper is) still wouldn't protect him from prosecution. If he was going to lie (deliberately mislead the GJ) he would have had to deny saying anything about it to reporters to protect himself from prosecution.
Now, Fitz's argument is that Libby was trying to obstruct the investigation, but even if everything in Waas' article it true, it means that Libby and the VP were conspiring to leak information that had already been leaked to reporters by Armitage to Woodward almost a month earlier and to Novak a week earlier.
Now, your argument makes much more sense for Armitage, who may have learned of Plame's classified status from his deputy, Grossman, and passed the info along anyway at least twice to reporters, and somehow managed to forget that he told Bob Woodward for over a year (until it was safe to confess to that too).
Posted by: Ranger | January 18, 2007 at 10:36 AM
'She didn't write "Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's essay."'
No, but it had appeared less than a week prior. More importantly, he had little reason to criticize the 'report' of March 2002, because it was helpful in refuting his July 2003 Op-ed.
I continue to be astonished that David Shuster remains employed as an NBC newsman. Although pundits get a lot of leeway, he reports as a legitimate news reporter when he is often an out and out liar. I have commented on this previously. NBC News has lost all standards. David Gregory, also supposedly a serious newsman, is allowed to replace Matthews and even Don Imus when they are on vacation and then merrily return to the White House presscorp as if he had never entered punditland. Matthews has now become no better than Olberman. Scarborough is a whore who has sold himself to the lefties to keep his job which I hope he soon loses anyway. They are all truly disgraceful. And there are some so called serious journalists, from the Washington Post for example, who are just as bad. One woman the other day flat out said everybody knows Cheney did this and Libby is guilty!! In the United States of America-guilty before being tried!! Absolutely disgraceful!!
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | January 18, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Florence Schmieg;
I totally agree with you and you said it eloquently.
-- Libby had no reason to lie about how he learned the information because no one told him it was classified --
That is one of the most inane, yet persistent arguments that appears at JOM. Months-old rebuttals elsewhere. I don't care if you hold to that belief or not. You aren't alone, but neither am I.
cbolt,
When people say Libby had no reason to lie, I think they actually are using shorthand for saying that a 50 something year old proffessional lawyer would not have intentionally told such an easily disprovable lie on purpose.
It would be like being pulled over alone for speeding and claiming to the officer that you weren't even in the car at the time.
Or claiming you couldn't possibly be guilty of jay-walking because you were committing an armed robbery down the street.
The purposeful lie argument just doesn't make logical sense.
Posted by: P | January 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
You can only be charged with mishandling classified information if you know it is classified information. Further, if you know it is classified, then simply sourcing it to a non-government source does not protect you from prosecution. Libby, as well as pretty much anyone in government who deals with classified information, knows that.
So, how does Libby's statements in any way protect him from prosecution on mishandling classified information?
Libby clearly stated in his GJ testimony that he disscussed sensitive information only after it was declassified by the VP or the president.
If he was going to lie about discussing classified information, why didn't he just deny or change the dates of passing on the NIE rather than admit that he disccussed it with Miller even though there was a Go-Stop-Go process to its declassification? That seems to have much more significant potential for prosecution (as Fitz's dogged persuit of that particular threat to no end shows) than Plame's name does.
Posted by: Ranger | January 18, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Just arrived--David Schuster's on my right, Bob Cox on my left, David Corn is sitting in front of me.
I'm told selection is slow today. Only one out of 8 remains in the pool. Right now they are questioning a juror who worked for the CIA, she has lots of law enforcement in her family. She has a child who had been abused in day care..the cops did nothing and she is upset about that.
CIA employee works in DO-Thinks the case is about Libby's blowing Plame's cover.To her understanding everyone who works there is classified in some way or another. She says she would bring to role with certain views about the case due to her employment.
--David Schuster's on my right, Bob Cox on my left, David Corn is sitting in front of me.--
ick. I'm sorry for you.
If you see David Gregory, could you tell him he really isn't my proxy? Thanks.
-- The purposeful lie argument just doesn't make logical sense. --
It sure as heck doesn't in hindsight, but it makes perfect sense if he's not indicted.
I know it's popular here, to hold that the case is an utter bad joke by Fitzgerald, for one reason, in that there is positively no motive, or that it's literally impossible for anybody to think Libby might have tried to mislead investigators.
Obviously I hold otherwise, but expressing why I hold so would just be repetitive on my part.
Posted by: cboldt | January 18, 2007 at 12:28 PM
David Corn is sitting in front of me.
Give him a swift kick for me please.
Posted by: sad | January 18, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Judge tells puror to be that there was no blowing of anyone's cover or damage to national security. He explains that Libby's charged only with false testimony with regard to the inveswtigation.
Wells responds that IA employees may testify and she has to weigh their credibility..Juror asks if substance of their testimomny, would her prior knowledge have an impact on how she views that evidence. She concedes it would.
She's had friends who were undercover and friends who were classified but not undercover..that she has an idea about how classified knowledge should be handled.
Familiar with Tenet but not with Grenier or Schmalls.
McLaughlin (Tenet's Deputy)--She's not familiar with him)
how does Libby's statements in any way protect him from prosecution on mishandling classified information?
They don't but Libby could have other reasons to cover up an OVP conspiracy to punish the wistleblowing Wilsons by destroying Valerie's career. Don't know if there is legal jeapordy for taking vengence on noble whistleblowers but if there isn't then a good prosecutor will determine what the law really should be and use whatever substitute can serve the interest of justice.
Posted by: boris | January 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I went next door to Hamsher's place. The comments there are amusing. They are truly perplexed why admitting you can't be fair to the defense is an automatic dismissal. And comparing Libby to terrorists. Nothing should astonish me anymore, but it still does.
Posted by: Sue | January 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Witness doesn't like Bush or Cheney.
Claims she'd be able to compartmentalize her feelings about Cheney.
Let me change (ever so slightly, heheheheh) "or that it's literally impossible for anybody to think Libby might have tried to mislead investigators." to "or that it's literally impossible for any reasonable person to think Libby might have tried to mislead investigators.
There goes Patrick Fitzgerald's love of the "published record"
Wells asking about fingerpointing--"We never hear anything good about CIA"
Re differing recollections--She says she and her husband always remember things differently.
-- Judge tells puror to be that there was no blowing of anyone's cover or damage to national security. --
That's a big deal. Seriously. If Walton has been saying that from time to time, right along, I'm shocked that there has not been a major report on that unequivocal statement by the Judge. "Judge says 'THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL LEAK'"
Wells:What if Cheney said CIA was at fault for giving Administration bad information--(bench conference--sound scrambler on)
You are shocked? Seriously?
Only Corn NEXT to you could be more irritating!!!
Posted by: azredneck | January 18, 2007 at 12:41 PM
--What if Cheney said CIA was at fault for giving Administration bad information--
Sounds like Cheney might say the CIA was at fault for purposely giving the Admin. bad information.
"there was no blowing of anyone's cover or damage to national security."
Now I really want to see what was in that referral letter.
It is pretty obvious that if not Fitz, at least his investigators bought Armitages story hook, line and sinker, and most likely bought into the revenge theory pushed in the media.
Woodward proves that much. When someone botches the investigation that bad, you'd have to be insane to not question the indictment.
Posted by: P | January 18, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Patton - I bet that if you ignored BTW he/she/it would go away. Just a thought.
From MJW:
Notice the Cooper charge has a rather clause: rather, LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The Miller charge has no such clause. So, presumably, Libby would be guilty if he didn't even mention Plame to Miller on July 12.
Boy, do I like that - re-reading Judy's account from July 12, I couldn't even tell whether she broached Plame with Libby, he broached it, or it was not discussed; looks like Fitzgerald had the same problem.
I guess that if Libby's testimony was that on July 12, he advised Ms. Miller that reporters were buzzing about Plame, and "in fact", he did not discuss Plame with her at all, then he is lying.
But he was not charged with a similar lie to Glenn Kessler. Interesting.
Patrick, on the notion that Miller was referring to the July 6 op-ed: as noted by cboldt, on her July 8 section Miller refers repeatedly to Wilson's "essay".
Secondly, it is quite a coincidence that Cheney singled out how, per the CIA/Wilson report Wilson lacked access to Nigerien officials, and then Libby leaked that to Miller.
I suppose that Miller may have gotten tired of the word "essay", and maybe it was just dumb luck that Libby criticized the essay with the same info Cheney wanted him to leak from the report, but I don't know how Waas could boldly assert that as fact.
And the fact that he blew the Cooper bit in the Huffer Post really suggests he has let standards slip on the old R&D.
TM didn't do justice to the inanity of Waas piece, say:
'Cheney and Libby often acted without the knowledge or approval and of other senior White House staff when it came to their efforts to discredit Wilson...'
The second highest Executive official, and his deputy, he means.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | January 18, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Did the judge actually say that? Or did he say the trial was not about blowing anyone's cover or damage to national security. One means something the other doesn't.
Now we have a break..Potential juror still up..Hasn't been struck yet.
Sue--I'm writing in shorthand--He was saying that is not what this case is about..Sorry for any confusion (my pc also keeps cutting off the network. Luckily, Bob showed me how to reconnect.)
Pach (FDL?) is in front of me to my right.
AP's Apuzzo is in front of the room but we haven't met.
My argument was that avoiding legal jepardy was the motive is fundimentally wrong, because there was no legal jepardy. Now, if you want to profer a different motivation to decieve the investigators, that's fine. But since the investigation was supposed to be about potential criminal conduct surrounding the mishandling of (possibly) classified information, that deception was not intended to conceal a crime, it was intended (if it occured at all) to conceal a non-crime, that deception (if it occured at all) was not criminal since you can't obstruct the investigation of a non-crime.
Concur. Libby wasn't in any significant legal jeopardy, and in any event the "heard it through the grapevine" story isn't an adequate defense. There's no indication he knew her status was classified, so the guilty leaking theory won't hold water. That (and the fact Armitage leaked first) eliminates most of the political jeopardy as well, leaving perjury and obstruction as the only real legal threat, and "coverup" as the only real political one. Which Libby's cover story plays right into. And just as with the "over confessions", either Libby told a very stupid lie, or he actually misremembered it.
That theory also requires that Libby, purposefully trying to come up with a cover story, can't flash on the uncheckable ones that work. For example:
"I don't really remember where I first heard it, but both reporters and government folks were talking about it, and I considered it an unimportant gossipy detail that came up in a few conversations."
"I knew she worked at CIA, and may have mentioned it a couple of times, but reporters already knew it."
Both of which not only provide more legal and political cover, but are practically impossible to disprove (and have the further virtue of likely being true).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 18, 2007 at 12:53 PM
He was saying that is not what this case is about..
Okay. I suspected as much.
-- When someone botches the investigation that bad, you'd have to be insane to not question the indictment. --
I know you aren't literally referring to me as "insane" - and in a sense I have questioned the indictment. But I concluded that I don't think it's an unreasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. I said from the outset that the indictment looked pretty strong. The facts that have emerged since go more to demolish a leak case than a false statements case.
Once you look past the smoke screens of "reporters already knew" and "reporters are confused liars," the allegation is that Libby didn't forget his conversations in official circles, that "Wilson's wife works at the CIA."
Clarice / Maguire: Is this going to be the live blogging thread for the day, or will a new one be set up, dedicated to that function?
Oooh, Clarice. Ask Corn if he's familiar with your work. ::snicker::
Posted by: sbw | January 18, 2007 at 12:59 PM
the allegation is that Libby didn't forget his conversations in official circles, that "Wilson's wife works at the CIA."
Which doesn't seem to explain indictments based on Cooper and Miller.
Is Welles giving that Rube Fitz an education on criminal law?
Posted by: PaulV | January 18, 2007 at 01:01 PM
cboldt,
Your argument would have more force if Fitz had also charged Armitage after he found out about his "faulty" memory. His motivations to forget key facts are just as self serving, yet he is given a pass because Armitage does not lead to the VP's office. This charge was clearly designed as leverage to get Libby to flip on the VP. Unfortunately for Fitz, there was no conspiracy to uncover.
Again from Waas:
'While questioning Libby during grand jury testimony, prosecutors were incredulous regarding Libby's claims that he and Cheney had not discussed Plame's CIA employment during the critical July 6 to July 14 period.'
This is why we think the case is a bad joke, cboldt. Plame's CIA employment wasn't important at that point. It only became important after David Corn and Joe Wilson concocted their theory a few days after Novak's column.
The prosecutors are guilty of circular reasoning.
Cboldt..Lance is still trying to get Tom to do the MBA live link..I'm using this thread because I gave it to MBA last night and for the moment it's the only way to get what I'm posting.
-- Your argument would have more force if Fitz had also charged Armitage after he found out about his "faulty" memory. --
The Armitage and Libby fact patterns (through the disclosure and the investigation phases) are distinguishable in a way that explains absence of false statements indictment to Armitage, presence of false statements indictment to Libby.
In contrast, the Rove and Libby fact patterns appear similar. How did Rove avoid indictment? A question for another day and time.
-- I'm using this thread because I gave it to MBA last night and for the moment it's the only way to get what I'm posting. --
Thanks. I was just curious. In the light that this aims to be "the live blogging" thread, I'll further refrain from cluttering the thread.
clutter away if you wish.
You are my hero. Katie Couric eat your heart out.
It's explained by Fitz's desire to punish the leak through a false statements charge. Which might be appropriate, if there were in fact a malicious leak. Unfortunately for the view of Fitz's intentions as sterling, that appears not to be the case.
How did Rove avoid indictment?
What's the charge? Failing to remember the conversation with Cooper? Good luck.
Thanks, sad..I must say this is a bit more interesting a voir dire than most..Even though I am seeing it only by closed circuit, I can see Wells trying to connect with this potential juror to make a decision whether he should move to strike her down the road or whether he can probe enough to have her struck for cause.
Heck...if you see David Gregory touch his hair and see if it moves....
Posted by: Specter | January 18, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Clarice -- you go girl. I have to leave in a few minutes for my deposition (nervous as hell), so it is great to know that when I get home, I'll have your reports to look forward to. I think I can speak for everyone on JOM when I say we are very proud to know you and have your excellent input.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | January 18, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Good Luck Sara.
I believe Judy was in fact making a distinction between a "report" and the "Op-Ed" piece. I remember viewing an item on CSpan in roughly this timeframe where Joe was a panelist. He was asked several times by reporters about the Administration's reaction to his "trip report". Initially he didn't answer directly but ended up having to explicitly state "I didn't write a report."
OF COURSE he didn't write a report because he went to Niger as a CIA source...NOT at the behest of the Veep which is the perception he was trying to encourage.
The audience was a bit confused on this point...how is it that the Vice Prez sent you on this trip yet you did not have to write an after-action report?
It was precisely this Q&A which convinced me that Wilson was lying through his teeth. He was obviously tasked by the CIA to go on the trip...not the VP. The debriefer wrote "the report"...Wilson didn't.
The question left hanging was: was there or was there not a report written? If a report hadn't been written, how did the results of Wilson's Niger trip reach the VP?
Joe didn't want to admit that somebody else wrote the report because the follow up would have been: "Who wrote it?"
He would have had to reply "My CIA debriefer." Which would have screwed up his contention (being flamed by Chris Matthews on Hardball) that he went to Niger "at the behest of the VP." Admitting that his CIA debriefer wrote it would have punctured a huge hole in his disinformation campaign.
I tried to query CSpan's database to get a date on when this program aired but couldn't get any results to pull it up. It was obviously AFTER he outed himself..
Posted by: MaidMarion | January 18, 2007 at 02:13 PM
'Mr. Libby also sought to explain why Mr. Bush included the disputed uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union address, a sentence of 16 words that his administration would later retract.'
Bush said he a had doubled the size of the CIA and planned to do the same thing with Peace Corps. Joe Wilson is an RPCV. Chris Matthews is an RPCV. Plame was leaked during his interview at CNN.
,' did you foresee that we would be where we are in Iraq today? It was childs play to do so.'
That was the CIA planed to sell off covert WMD training for all OOs and get even with Rice and her WMD degree. She taught this to Bush and other things, alone, late, with wine, in the mansion, all by themselves.......
Iraq is easy. We're missing Afghanistan and the CIA planning of that war with more RPCVs, Kennedy pals, Green Berets, NGOS, Intelligence Committee financing through USAID and Hillary's request to increase troops there and bring the Iraq troops home. The dems screwed up there and NATO knows this, so Hillary is trying to be international and send more troops when the goal is to be out by summer and out of NATO later. The EU may be a better place.
'a juror who worked for the CIA, she has lots of law enforcement in her family. She has a child who had been abused in day care..the cops did nothing and she is upset about that.' Day care, KC? The trade here seems to be a question for Plame. Was she? There are some patterns in NOCs overseas that are similar to Clinton who was an alcoholic. Maybe she knew Aimes too?
inwestigation? puror?
FDL? She deletes. It's turned into a fund raiser for her surgery. She would have done better with a site just for the trial.
Posted by: Health Issues? | January 18, 2007 at 02:16 PM
"Just arrived--David Schuster's on my right, Bob Cox on my left, David Corn is sitting in front of me."
The stick Clarice, the stick!
Posted by: PeterUK | January 18, 2007 at 02:25 PM
Thank you for carrying the JOM banner into battle. I echo Sara's comment and want to say how proud we all are of you and your participation in this trial. Thank you for your time and energy. All your posts make for great minute by minute coverage.
sara: good luck today, I'll say a prayer for you.
Posted by: maryrose | January 18, 2007 at 02:54 PM
Patton:
"So Madeline Albright herself confirmed 500,000 dead Iraqis due to Clintons policeis by May of 1996."
The "dead Iraqis" "statistics" story is a myth. No such thing really happened. The UN created a pseudo-study looking at supposed stats of population size, not deaths. Didn't account for people leaving the country.
Albright was caught flat-footed. Stahl's statement was prefaced with the authority of the "United Nations", something a person of the political ilk of Albright reflexively respects.
Genocidal statistics-porn has a heritage in Marxist apologetics, contextualizing Western actions to be equal to Marxist. That's why it is a leftist rather than rightist endeavor today. Same folks recently created the fraudulent 100,000s dead since 2003 in Iraq, and tried to inflate Afghan casualties for the same reflexively anti-American purposes and attitudes.
"The prosecutors are guilty of circular reasoning."
They're putting on a case. They need a motive for Libby to purposefully lie. The best one is covering up for Cheney. That's why articles like Waas' exist, consciously or not they are trying to make a case.
Patrick-
Could you explain what you are thinking here? Are you saying Libby did talk about Wilson's report, but used it to rebut Wilson's Op-Ed?
Posted by: MayBee | January 18, 2007 at 04:05 PM
I seriously don't understand why you ever saw any value in Murray Waas. He is a disingenuous hack, as I have detailed many times on my blog.
Posted by: Seixon | January 18, 2007 at 04:35 PM
For what it's worth, here's every use of "report" as a noun in Miller's story:
According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program.
I recall that Mr. Libby was angry about reports suggesting that senior administration officials, including Mr. Cheney, had embraced skimpy intelligence about Iraq's alleged efforts to buy uranium in Africa while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Such reports, he said, according to my notes, were "highly distorted."
Mr. Libby said the vice president's office had indeed pressed the Pentagon and the State Department for more information about reports that Iraq had renewed efforts to buy uranium.
As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.
My notes indicate that Mr. Libby told me the report on the 1999 delegation had been attributed to Joe Wilson.
Mr. Libby also told me that on the basis of these two reports and other intelligence, his office had asked the C.I.A. for more analysis and investigation of Iraq's dealings with Niger.
His main theme echoed that of other senior officials: that contrary to Mr. Wilson's criticism, the administration had had ample reason to be concerned about Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on the regime's history of weapons development, its use of unconventional weapons and fresh intelligence reports.
My notes of this phone call show that Mr. Libby quickly turned to criticizing Mr. Wilson's report on his mission to Niger.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me to read the final three paragraphs aloud to the grand jury. "The public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me," Mr. Libby wrote.
Here's every use of the word "essay":
In July 2003, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, created a firestorm by publishing an essay in The New York Times that accused the Bush administration of using faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.
I interviewed Mr. Libby for a second time on July 8, two days after Mr. Wilson published his essay attacking the administration on the Op-Ed Page of The Times.
I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I almost certainly began this interview by asking about Mr. Wilson's essay, which appeared to have agitated Mr. Libby. As I recall, Mr. Libby asserted that the essay was inaccurate.
I said I felt that since The Times had run Mr. Wilson's original essay, it had an obligation to explore any allegation that undercut his credibility.
My impression is that Miller's uses "report" to refer to news reports and intelligence reports, and that she doesn't consider Wilson's op-ed a news report.
cboldt has a new Libby filing on the jury instuctions. Unbelievably (to me), Walton is apparently following Fitz's original version of the obstruction charge instructions that more or less say simply says Libby obstructed the investigation, without limiting the charge to the specific obstructive activities outlined in the indictment. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe allowing such a broad instruction would be reversible error.
Ranger: I don't think you are covered to lie to investigators, because you don't think the lead was classified. That was still up for question. Similarly, it was not ok for Clinton to lie about Monica (even if his rationale was a belief that it was immaterial to the Paula Jones case).
Cboldt:
What is your suspicion as to what happened?
-- What is your suspicion as to what happened? --
Libby leaked in June and July, Libby lied in October and November to avoid political embarrassment - he thought he could get away with the lie - a good bet, going by history. Fitz didn't dispute the CIA's referral (neither did the DOJ, they investigated too). Fitz figured he had a liar or two, and decided to confirm that suspicion with Grand Jury testimony. He concluded he had false statements case, and not a leaker case. He indicted Libby. I don't know why he didn't indict Rove, I speculate a deal was cut.
I don't like having those suspicions - I'm to the right of Goldwater, politically.
Me too. But we may value truth more. BTW, you da man.
Let's chop their pee-pees off. Hate someone who will not take his whipping. Frigging liars. Sea-lawyers. Grrr.