Feb 12 2007
The Peacock And The Spies
The Libby trial is about to explode into new and fascinating territory this week as we finally get to see the Libby defence team shred Fitzgerald’s already tissue thin case. I am suspect of the idea Russert and NBC screwed themselves up by denying they had any former knowledge of Plame before Novak’s column, but I may just be naive about what lengths reporters will go to in order to cover their sources. Is it more conceivable Libby lied to cover up his legal knowledge of Plame or for Russert/NBC to lie in order to protect their sources? This question is rapidly what this trial is coming down to here this week (though I still expect more exposure of Wilsons, Grossman and others working for the Kerry campaign to possibly come out). Let me begin with the ridiculous position of the Prosecutor:
Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert story to shield him from prosecution for discussing information he had learned through official government channels.
It is not important how Libby learned of Plame. He admitted hearing this from inside channels, but it has been clear for some time there is no law against talking about Plame’s role in getting Joe Wilson to Niger. It is not illegal to say “she worked for the CIA”. Everyone in this town knows that if you know they work for the CIA it is 99% likely they are not NOC’s – by definition. If the OVP, or state, or CIA press spokesman knows the name of a CIA employee they are not a NOC. Plain and simple. Libby knows this. And he could have, at any point (and apparently did) say “you know, I forgot about these discussions so I did know her name before the conversation”. The point is he could do that AND say it is possible he misrecalled is conversation with Russert. Done. Fitz has nothing (no judge would take it – trust me).
But Libby, the consumate DC lawyer who worked to get Marc Richards pardoned by Clinton, did not waiver in his recollection of the discussion with Russert. Why? It was so easy to get out from the perjury charge (as just about everyone else did) by saying he must have een mistaken. To follow the logic of the prosecutor that is what a good, seasoned lawyer would do – just cop the “I must have been mistaken” line. So the fact must be that Libby really does recall the conversation that way and he is sticking by the truth because that is what every fiber in his body tells him is the right way to win in our legal system. He has more faith than I do, but it may prove to be right. Because while everyone around him have changed their stories or demanded immunity to admit their clear guilt in exposing Plame to the media (which is not illegal either), Libby is the one sticking by his story long past the need to. So maybe there is something there. If team Libby can prove Russert/NBC did lie to investigators in a lame attempt to hide their sources (as part of some shady deal for testiminy with a retiring FBI agent) then that would be a huge break in the case. Sit tight, the next two weeks should be fascinating.
I notice our site pest has not replied to these articles…Facts and the truth seem to always do that, donncha know!
And I am looking forward to what may come out this week….molten rock, I hope.
Very interesting points, AJ, about Libby sticking to his story…could there be a “method to all this madness”?
🙂
BTW, the site pests have been booted. I have no idea why someone would come into our living room, literally from where we sit, and insult is like the children they are. But they do and they get the boot. We are probably going to be closing up the ability to sign in as commenters. I have had to boot too many people this month to be bothered with the headaches.
Thank you for this site, AJ. It is a first stop in the morning, noon and evening for me!
It is too bad it has to be polluted by those who traffic in the baseness of humanity, a.k.a. Hard Left (and even some Liberals and Hard Right Dukites I encounter).
The reason that Libby wound up sticking to his story is rather simple: at the time that he first lied about learning Plame’s identity from Russert to Federal investigators, the Plame Investigation was still running under the auspices of John Ashcroft, and Libby quite correctly assumed that as long as Ashcroft was in charge of investigating, nothing would come of it.
The problem arose when Ashcroft, sensing a crisis, passed the hot potato to his new Deputy AG, James Comey, who passed along the investigatory responsibilities to a prosecutor he knew to be able and thorough: Patrick Fizgerald.
If Libby now changed his testimony under oath to the Grand Jury, he knew that there would be a disparity between his testimony to the FBI and to the Grand Jury. Rather than recant, and face the questions engendered in his change of story, Libby decided: this is my story and I’m sticking to it.
The next question of import is simple and direct: will Libby testify or not? Will he subject himself to further informed cross-examination by Fitzgerald?
Everything else is spin, as all the other witnesses – with the possible exception of Dick Cheney – pale next to Libby.
I fail to see what the motive was for Libby to “lie”. And as we all know, Comey, is not a friend of this administration. And Fitzgerald knew from almost the beginning that Armitage was the leaker. Why did he pursue the case? Inquiring minds want to know.
And let’s see: Dion, Shwartz, Caproni, and what’s his name were all on the case at the beginning…and Berger’s case as well….all clintoinistas!
And let’s not forget: SHE WAS NOT COVERT in the first place!
This is all a cover-up for 1) sales of black market uranium and 2) rogue agents trying to undermine a sitting President during war, imho.
Why was Wilson in Niger in 1999? This has yet to be answered. Why did Valerie, et al want to “get ahead of the curve” on this story?
Answers needed.
Libby lied because he was scared. He asked David Addington how you could tell is someone was covert. Addington responded by giving him a copy of the Intelligence Identities Act. Libby wanted to make sure that his a** and the more substantial a** of the VP were covered, and he concocted the cockamamie story that Russert told him about Plame, when his handwritted notes clearly indicated it came from Cheney.
Stupid? Well, yes. But when people are panicking, they often do stupid things – even very smart people.
Soothie,
It is clear you don’t work for or within the Federal government…
I gather you understand how I can tell so easily.
If she were NOT covert, i.e., working under non-official cover (NOC) – then why did the Central Intelliegence Agency, a department of the Federal government that reports to the President, file a referral for criminal investigation to the Department of Justice?
Was Ashcroft in on the conspiracy against Bush? Was Tenet? How high does the evil cabal reach??
In any case, the as yet uncontroverted statement of the United States of America is:
Thanks, AJ, that’s the nicest thing anybody’s ever said about me.
I gather its the fact that I don’t have that glazed, slightly obtuse look so common with folks who live by suckling on the public teat. And I have yet to submit a fraudulent invoice to the government.
LOL! No soothie. It’s your complete and utter ignorance.
Soothie,
Do you need a crime to investigate or do you need an allegation? Do investigations only find guilt or can they discover innocence?
We were speaking of your incredible depth of ignorance on the government. I must say you are one of the most ignorant who comment here.
The Scooter Libby trial…
The prosecution has rested its case, but AJ Strata believes, “The Libby trial is about to explode into new and fascinating territory this week as we finally get to see the Libby defence team shred Fitzgerald’s already tissue thin case.” …
Ad hominem attacks are so uncivil, AJ, especially coming from someone who cannot perform simple mathematical functions or convert metric measurements, e.g., the centimeter debacle.
You’ve put forth your views on the Libby trial, let’s wait and see what the verdict is before we determine who is ignorant.
The word ‘ignorant’ means lack of knowledge – which is exactly where you sit. Your discomfort with the fact I note your situation has little bearing on whether I am right or not. Your feelings are of little bearing on whether you are ignorant or not. You are. Maybe you should try not to emphasize that so often. Would you come in an debate a nuero-surgeon on what the proper process is for severing and reconnecting key neuron paths during surgery? Would they not say fairly quickly into such an attempt you are fairly ignorant of neuro-surgical techniques?
Sorry, but you have no clue what in the world you are talking about. I never forced you to do such a thing, but I have no problem in pointing out what it reflects.
AJ – my knowledge and understanding of the law – especially of trial advocacy – is so vastly larger than yours that your protestations are simply amusing.
I wouldn’t debate a neurosurgeon – but you AREN’T a neurosurgeon. nor are you a lawyer. Nor, I believe, do you have experience with Federal prosecutors or Federal Grand Juries or with writing memoranda of law to trial courts, appellate courts or the Supreme Court of the United States. And I do.
Regardless of all the rethoric, at worst Libby is guilty of a poor memory, which apparently is a process crime (as he was on the stand when his memory failed him).
Why didn’t “Le Grande Prosecutor Fitzgerald” go after Dick Armitage? It’s not a secret that he is the source of the leak of the non-covert CIA analyst Valerie Plame, who is the wife of Joe Wilson.
When will it be Armitage’s day in the barrel? And why has our side abandoned Libby? I, for one, hope that President Bush has the – as they say down here is Texas – Huevos to pardon Libby after he is most likely to be convicted.
That’s the stinky pile of truth is that the crusade to vilify the right (namely Karl Rove and others) is going to end up with the jury deciding who they “like” better, Tim Russert of NBC, or Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby. With so much hate directed towards our administration, I just can’t see this coming out in Scooter’s favor. Although I do hope he is acquitted.
so,uh,soothsayer.
where’s your blog??
Gumshoe – is a blog now some indicia of credibility?? How quaint!
And, AJ, with respect to the government and ignorance, you are talking about government that shipped 363 tons – that’s TONS – or 726,000 pounds of $20’s and $100’s – TAXPAYERS’s $$$$$$$$ IN CASH to Iraq – disbursed it – and failed to get receipts.
And when asked why, said:
That’s how they do business over there.
And I’m ignorant about the government???
Soothie,
We are only discussing your ignorance vis a vis how the Federal government works. I am not talking about all the mistakes they make. We were discussing your mistakes.
As we determined by your own admission, it is pretty foreign to you.
Soothie,
I know federal prosecutors and state prosecutors, etc. You should note my family history is not limited to my career experience. Therefore you should not assume my views are not assessed, checked and challenged by those in the know. And while not a neuro-surgeon, I did study neuro-physiology before switching to an engineering career. And I was not talking legal, I was talking how the government works.
LOL! I suggest you stop while you are only this far behind. You don’t want to be losing anymore cred to a lowly middle-aged white guy. Your feminist ego cannot take the humiliation.