Woodward On Plame-Libby Could Get Off

[Avatar4321]

I would leave the investigation up to the legal experts. The case could have possibly been completed a long time ago, but when people perjure themselves and obstruct justice, then the investigation continues.

The issue revolved around whether people in the White House had intentionally leaked Plame's name. Why wouldn't he talk to administration officials?

And they don't have to provide any evidence as to why Libby would have lied--just that he made contradictory statements.

HELLO!? The issue was whether someone committed a crime in leaking Plame's name. That can be determined simply by Looking at the law and seeing whether it would have been criminal to mention her name. Fitzgerald could not prosecute anyone for leaking Plame because there was nothing illegal in mentioning Plame's name. She was not a covert CIA agent under any interpretation of the law.

Since a first year law student could look at the applicable law and the facts in the situation and determine within one hour that no law was broken. Why did Fitzgerald need to investigate any administration officials?

Also, in order to obstruct justice you have to prove the element of intent. In order to pursuade a jury that Libby had the Mens Rea of intent to obstruct justice, the prosecutor has to have some evidence to do so. It would be impossible to show this intent exists without some sort of motive. There isn't one. There was no crime. There was no violation of law whatsoever.

So why did Libby supposedly obstruct justice? Where is the intent?

As for the perjury charge. Prosecutors need to show he knowingly lied. There is no evidence that prosecutors can provide any such evidence. Again the question of why comes up.The question of Libby's memory comes into play. There are so many good defenses against this hollowed up charge its ridiculous.

The fact is this entire indictment is nothing but a political ploy. And if you believe it's anything else you are living in a fantasy world. If you don't believe me you dont have to take my word for it. Go look up the laws yourself.

 

[Cabernet]

I think you need to bulk up on some reading comprehension. Did I say that Libby was indicted for leaking? I am talking about what the point of the entire investigation was to begin with. There was no crime. It was obvious by reading the law and looking at Plames recent career work and travel log that there was no crime. All of this could have been determined within several hours of its initiation.

If you don't see something fishy there than you seriously have to be living in a fantasy world.

You said this: "How can you leak something that is common knowledge?"

That prompted my response.

It's possible that the statute was not violated. Just because it was not violated does not mean that there was no crime. Did you sit with the grand jury day in and day out? Are you a legal expert in this area of law? This is typical in a criminal case--one side wants to prove the crime occurred, the other side wants to prove it did not occur.

In investigating this supposed crime, Fitzgerald perceived Libby as obstructing justice and lying under oath. That is a matter for interpretation, which the jury will decide.

The only thing I see that is fishy is why Libby would make such inconsistent statements.

 

[Cabernet]

HELLO!? The issue was whether someone committed a crime in leaking Plame's name. That can be determined simply by Looking at the law and seeing whether it would have been criminal to mention her name. Fitzgerald could not prosecute anyone for leaking Plame because there was nothing illegal in mentioning Plame's name. She was not a covert CIA agent under any interpretation of the law.

Can you prove that? Anyway, obviously Fitzgerald saw other issues involved. He was not limited to investigating only the possible violation of the statute.

Since a first year law student could look at the applicable law and the facts in the situation and determine within one hour that no law was broken. Why did Fitzgerald need to investigate any administration officials?

See above answers.

Also, in order to obstruct justice you have to prove the element of intent. In order to pursuade a jury that Libby had the Mens Rea of intent to obstruct justice, the prosecutor has to have some evidence to do so. It would be impossible to show this intent exists without some sort of motive. There isn't one. There was no crime. There was no violation of law whatsoever.

Why do you talk with such definitive terms? I find it odd, considering that you don't know all the facts in the case. You can read the indictment, you can read the transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, but you have no idea that there was no violation of a law "whatsoever."

So why did Libby supposedly obstruct justice? Where is the intent?

Only Libby knows. Just because you don't know the intent does not mean that it doesn't exist.

As for the perjury charge. Prosecutors need to show he knowingly lied. There is no evidence that prosecutors can provide any such evidence. Again the question of why comes up.The question of Libby's memory comes into play. There are so many good defenses against this hollowed up charge its ridiculous.

LOL This legal expert attitude you have is humorous.

The fact is this entire indictment is nothing but a political ploy. And if you believe it's anything else you are living in a fantasy world. If you don't believe me you dont have to take my word for it. Go look up the laws yourself.

Guess I'm living in a fantasy world. You and I can look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusions. It doesn't mean your interpretation is any better than mine. Just FYI.

 

[theHawk]

I understand Cabernet's point. There probably wasn't ever a crime commited in the first place, but its still possible Libby lied. I haven't been following this case that closely...my question is, what did Libby say that they are claiming is a lie? Did Libby change his testimony? What are the statements he made?

 

[Cabernet]

I understand Cabernet's point. There probably wasn't ever a crime commited in the first place, but its still possible Libby lied. I haven't been following this case that closely...my question is, what did Libby say that they are claiming is a lie? Did Libby change his testimony? What are the statements he made?

I have the indictment. I will read it in the next day or so and see if it answers your questions.

It does appear that she was not a "covert" agent, but Fitzgerald stated that her status at the CIA was "classified." At the beginning of the indictment, he mentions a statute that says those with security clearance to access classified information are obligated not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. He states that Libby had that kind of security clearance, but then he is silent as to whether or not that statute was implicated or not.

 

[Annie]

I have the indictment. I will read it in the next day or so and see if it answers your questions.

It does appear that she was not a "covert" agent, but Fitzgerald stated that her status at the CIA was "classified." At the beginning of the indictment, he mentions a statute that says those with security clearance to access classified information are obligated not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information. He states that Libby had that kind of security clearance, but then he is silent as to whether or not that statute was implicated or not.

You have a copy of the indictment, which we discussed last evening:

Originally Posted by Kathianne
Why don't you read what Fitzgerald wrote?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...lient=firefox-a

I have. What is incorrect about what I said? This changes the facts in some respects, but it does not take away the fact that Libby potentially lied.

What part of 'inconsistent do you have a problem with? (I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that you lied and wanted me to explain why you may be mistaken.)

 

[Mr. P]

Wow, The first 5 pages or so of the indictment fit with the rumor the CIA is behind this whole thing. Why?

 

[Cabernet]

You have a copy of the indictment, which we discussed last evening:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...lient=firefox-a

Okay.

What part of 'inconsistent do you have a problem with? (I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that you lied and wanted me to explain why you may be mistaken.)

I do not understand what you are referring to when you say "inconsistent."

I stand by what I said yesterday which is that the charges will still stand even with this new twist.

 

[Annie]

Too cute! The reason I said I wouldn't get on the merry-go-round with you.

Okay.



I do not understand what you are referring to when you say "inconsistent."

I stand by what I said yesterday which is that the charges will still stand even with this new twist.

The part you left out:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne
Why don't you read what Fitzgerald wrote?

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...lient=firefox-a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabernet

I have. What is incorrect about what I said? This changes the facts in some respects, but it does not take away the fact that Libby potentially lied.

What part of 'inconsistent do you have a problem with? (I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that you lied and wanted me to explain why you may be mistaken.)

 

[Annie]

This is what I meant way back in post 19 about timing:

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20051116-100220-8066r

Woodward and the Plame affair
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Published November 17, 2005
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should drop his prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. In light of Bob Woodward's recent revelations, suggesting that he could have told Mr. Libby of Valerie Plame's CIA employment, Mr. Libby's conviction seems unlikely.
Although Mr. Fitzgerald was exempted from the normal Department of Justice regulations governing the conduct of a special counsel, he should nevertheless follow the requirements of the U.S. Attorneys Manual, which provides that "both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact." Mr. Fitzgerald may well have believed this standard met when he sought the indictment; he should now reconsider.
Mr. Fitzgerald was originally tasked to investigate whether the revelation, reported by Robert Novak in July 2003, that Bush critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA violated the law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) was enacted in 1982, and criminalizes the exposure of "covert" American agents. However, to fall within this protected category, an individual in Mrs. Plame's situation must: (1) be employed in a classified status; (2) either be serving overseas or have served overseas within five years; and (3) the government must be taking affirmative measures to conceal its relationship to the individual. Although Mrs. Plame's employment was allegedly "classified," her husband's own published memoirs suggest that she returned to Washington more than five years before her status was revealed. Moreover, the government was not taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her employment within the IIPA's meaning. In fact, she was living openly under her own name and working at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Significantly, nowhere does the indictment claim that any government official informed Mr. Libby even that Mrs. Plame's employment was "classified."
Not surprisingly, Mr. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with an IIPA violation. Instead, he sought an indictment against Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. The core of this case is the claim that Mr. Libby misled investigators, and the grand jury, about having been told of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment by journalists. In particular, the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby claimed to have been informed of Mr. Plame's status by NBC's Tim Russert in July 2003, and that he later told both Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller he had heard this fact from other reporters. Evidently, each of these journalists remembers things differently, and that is the foundation of Mr. Fitzgerald's case against Mr. Libby.
Enter Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning (for reporting the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein) assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. Mr. Woodward has told prosecutor Fitzgerald that he was informed of Mrs. Plame's CIA connection by another government official in mid-June 2003 ("the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive"). Moreover, Mr. Woodward has also stated that he met with Mr. Libby on June 27, taking with him a list of questions which included references to "yellowcake" and to "Joe Wilson's wife." Mr. Wilson, of course, was sent to Niger by the CIA (evidently at his wife's recommendation) to investigate whether Saddam Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons (yellowcake) material there. Responding to Mr. Fitzgerald's questions, Mr. Woodward also stated that it was possible (although he does not recall) that he discussed Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Plame with Mr. Libby.
Truth, as they say, is the daughter of time. It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
Moreover, perjury is not just lying under oath; it is lying under oath about something material. The other counts against Mr. Libby similarly depend upon a material misrepresentation of fact. In this case, the critical fact was that Mr. Libby heard of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment from media, as well as from government, sources. The precise media source is irrelevant.
Mr. Fitzgerald could, of course, insist on proceeding with a criminal trial. However, in the interests of justice, and especially since the identity of a covert agent was not revealed in this case, he should simply drop the prosecution now. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, it is increasingly evident that there is just no there there.

David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

 

[Cabernet]

Do you do anything more than just post articles and websites, oh, and insults? It just appears to me that you do not provide much analysis in any of the posts I have seen, including explaining why you feel the need to give me the finger and say that I am full of BS.

 

[Annie]

Do you do anything more than just post articles and websites, oh, and insults? It just appears to me that you do not provide much analysis in any of the posts I have seen, including explaining why you feel the need to give me the finger and say that I am full of BS.

Again, cute but a failure. You are owned. Not only did I say from the beginning I wouldn't play your stupid game, I said why. Then it came to pass. Then you whined and tried for a mulligan. Nope.

 

[Bonnie]

I do not believe that you have an understanding of what it means to perjure yourself or obstruct justice. What you lie about does not have to be a crime. Bill Clinton having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky was not a crime, but he lied about having sexual relations with her under oath. Thus, he perjured himself.

Say you robbed a bank and that I stated under oath that you were at my house that day and could not have robbed the bank (which was untrue), that would be was a lie. You being at my house is not a crime, right? But I lied under oath and said you were at my house when that was not true. Therefore, I perjure myself.

When people perjure themselves, it is usually indicative that they have something to hide. Regardless, assuming this goes to trial, the jury will decide whether Libby perjured himself or had a faulty memory. That's the jury's duty.

LOL I understand full well what perjury means.....Here's the bottom line.......Fitzgerald dug around for two years looking for a crime of outing a covert agent, and all he came up with after two years was Lewis Libby forgetting what he told a reporter amongst the hundred or so phone calls he makes and receives daily....Sorry but this is laughable. Yes the indictment will stand because Fitzy is trying to save face and his career, right now he is losing that among a lot of prosecutors who still shake their heads and wonder what he is really accomplishing........But your right the jury will make the final determination about Libby.

 

[Cabernet]

LOL I understand full well what perjury means.....Here's the bottom line.......Fitzgerald dug around for two years looking for a crime of outing a covert agent, and all he came up with after two years was Lewis Libby forgetting what he told a reporter amongst the hundred or so phone calls he makes and receives daily....Sorry but this is laughable. Yes the indictment will stand because Fitzy is trying to save face and his career, right now he is losing that among a lot of prosecutors who still shake their heads and wonder what he is really accomplishing........But your right the jury will make the final determination about Libby.

What's funny is your anger towards a prosecutor. You fail to acknowledge that Fitzgerald is an excellent prosecutor who was picked by the Dept. of Justice, which is being run by republicans. George Bush complimented him. Somehow I doubt that you have a full understanding of the facts in this case. Were you in the grand jury? Were you there during their deliberations?

Regardless, you may think that Libby forgot facts, and that could be true, although if you read the indictment and/or saw the press conference that Fitzgerald had, you would see that Libby's story involved detailed facts. It's okay to get on the stand and say you cannot remember facts. That's human. But he got on the stand and said he learned X from Cheney and then forgot about it and then learned X again from Russert and it was like he learned it for the very first time. Why? Why couldn't he just say he could not remember when he learned about Plame? He also claimed he didn't know that Wilson had a wife, yet when speaking to a CIA employee and a reporter, he called Plame "Wilson's wife."

There are strange facts that he alleged that did not need to be made. This is not the sign of a bad memory. The man is a lawyer, so he knew that he had an option of saying he could not recall. Also, Libby is known for being meticulous about details, which is not a good thing for him, as people will most likely be called to the stand to attest to his meticulousness. But I am willing to let the jury decide how this case should go.

 

[Said1]

What's funny is your anger towards a prosecutor. You fail to acknowledge that Fitzgerald is an excellent prosecutor who was picked by the Dept. of Justice, which is being run by republicans. George Bush complimented him. Somehow I doubt that you have a full understanding of the facts in this case. Were you in the grand jury? Were you there during their deliberations?

Regardless, you may think that Libby forgot facts, and that could be true, although if you read the indictment and/or saw the press conference that Fitzgerald had, you would see that Libby's story involved detailed facts. It's okay to get on the stand and say you cannot remember facts. That's human. But he got on the stand and said he learned X from Cheney and then forgot about it and then learned X again from Russert and it was like he learned it for the very first time. Why? Why couldn't he just say he could not remember when he learned about Plame? He also claimed he didn't know that Wilson had a wife, yet when speaking to a CIA employee and a reporter, he called Plame "Wilson's wife."

There are strange facts that he alleged that did not need to be made. This is not the sign of a bad memory. The man is a lawyer, so he knew that he had an option of saying he could not recall. Also, Libby is known for being meticulous about details, which is not a good thing for him, as people will most likely be called to the stand to attest to his meticulousness. But I am willing to let the jury decide how this case should go.

You could you provide some links to the documents you claim to have, at your fingertips?

 

[Cabernet]

You could you provide some links to the documents you claim to have, at your fingertips?

Here is a link to Fitzgerald's press conference. For some reason, I cannot find a link for the indictment itself. I have a physical copy of it, and printed it out the day it came out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Here are the parts that I address above:

FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.

FITZGERALD: And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

FITZGERALD: When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

FITZGERALD: Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

FITZGERALD: So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

 

[theHawk]

So what if he testified that he told reporters that he didn't know if he had a wife. Even *if* its a lie, its not against the law to lie to a reporter.
I was under the assumtion he changed his story in the courtroom. Its doesn't matter what he told reporters....its not under oath....

 

[Bonnie]

What's funny is your anger towards a prosecutor. You fail to acknowledge that Fitzgerald is an excellent prosecutor who was picked by the Dept. of Justice, which is being run by republicans. George Bush complimented him. Somehow I doubt that you have a full understanding of the facts in this case. Were you in the grand jury? Were you there during their deliberations?

I have no anger towards Mr Fitzgerald, don't know him, and all else aside Im sure he's a competent prosecutor, It's nice that George complimented him.. Still doesn't mean in this case he's 100% up to par........ Im not a prosecutor nor was I present or part of the grand jury and since that was a rather sad and obvious attempt to try and diminish my opinion based on that.... I referred to other qualified prosecutors who spoke criticisms of Fitzgerald in this case.....

Why are you so angry at Mr Libby?, Do you know him?, you come across as someone who is desperate to make your case that Libby is most likely guilty and should go to prison. Do you have a personal stake in this??? I have to wonder??

 

[Annie]

Most succinct I've seen. Speaking of the 'most famous reporter on the planet', I think JOHN PODHORETZ should come close, after his latest entry on Commentary.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/57701.htm

November 18, 2005 -- LET'S try to figure out this new wrinkle in the world's most confusing Washington inquisition.

Now we know that a week after the indictment of senior Bush White House official Scooter Libby on Oct. 28, another Washington Personage — a major player of some sort in the Bush constellation — called the office of Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is the prosecutor assigned to look into the question of who leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson.

The Washington Personage said that Fitzgerald had gotten it wrong. Fitzgerald had said at a press conference that Libby had been "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter" when he told Judith Miller (then of The New York Times) about Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment on June 23, 2003.

No, said the Washington Personage. Libby couldn't have been the first one — because I had a conversation with a reporter at some earlier date in which I revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's employment at the CIA. And that conversation wasn't with just any reporter — it was with the most famous reporter on the planet.

That reporter is The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. After the Washington Personage spoke to Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor contacted Woodward on Nov. 3. Nine days later, Fitzgerald took a sworn deposition from Woodward.

From Nov. 3 to Nov. 12, Woodward sought and received clearance from three Bushites to speak about his meetings with them.

Official No. 1 was White House Chief of Staff Andy Card. Though the notes Woodward brought along with him for the interview feature the words "Joe Wilson's wife," Woodward's tape recording of the interview indicates the subject did not come up. (We know all this from Woodward's written statement, released by The Washington Post on Wednesday.)

Official No. 2 was Scooter Libby himself, with whom he once spoke by phone and once in person. On both occasions the notes Woodward brought along for that conversation included the words "Joe Wilson's wife."

As for the phone talk, Woodward says he "testified that I have no recollection that Wilson or his wife was discussed [with Libby], and I have no notes of the conversation." And as for the in-person discussion, "I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife . . . If Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes."

Official No. 3 was the Washington Personage who contacted Patrick Fitzgerald's office. He explicitly forbade Woodward from revealing his identity.

People across the Internet and in every office inside the Beltway, trying to figure out who the Washington Personage is, are intrigued that Woodward's statement refers to his sources as "three current or former Bush administration officials."

The Internet obsessives suspect Woodward was subtly signaling that the Washington Personage is no longer employed in the Bush administration. In that case, it could be any number of people known to have been sources for Woodward in the past.

But Woodward has no reason whatever to be sending us signals, especially since he says he is still obliged to protect the identity of his source from public view. It seems more likely that in using the term "former Bush administration official," he was referring to Libby, who resigned once he was indicted.

So his source could be anybody who now works or has worked for the administration — anybody except Libby or Card (and, presumably, Karl Rove, because had it been he, Fitzgerald would have indicted Rove three seconds after getting Woodward's deposition).

It is therefore a ridiculous waste of time — fun, but ridiculous — to speculate about that person's identity.

The only people who know are the personage himself, Fitzgerald and Bob Woodward. And Woodward can keep a secret: He never revealed Deep Throat's identity, and only spoke about it when Deep Throat himself (Mark Felt) went public.

But what does this mean for Fitzgerald's case against Libby?

Some people are saying that the Woodward revelation imposes an ethical obligation on Fitzgerald to dismiss the case. Scooter Libby is a friend of mine, and I'd be thrilled for him and his family if that happened. But it probably isn't.

Fitzgerald indicted Libby for two things. The first and most important: lying to his grand jury about when and how he learned of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment. (Fitzgerald says Libby learned about her job from Dick Cheney on June 12 and lied when he told the grand jury he found out about it from Tim Russert 28 days later.)

It's hard to see how Woodward undoes this aspect of the indictment. It's up to Fitzgerald to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby consciously knew he was fibbing when he said what he said to the grand jury, just as it was before.

He also indicted Libby on-obstruction of-justice charges. Hard to see here, too, how this is affected — because Fitzgerald alleges Libby obstructed justice by lying before a grand jury.

It does confuse the case mightily — which will be of great help to Libby at trial: He can make the case that nobody involved in the Plame-Wilson revelations has been able to make coherent sense of any of it.

How can it be fair to convict Libby when even the prosecutor himself can't get the story straight? That's where this case is going.

 

[Annie]

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005813.php

November 19, 2005
Woodward Apologetics 101

The Washington Post, suddenly finding itself in much the same position as the New York Times in the Plame Flameout, goes on defense in today's editorial. Facing the scorn of other journalists for supposedly protecting a conservative rather than a liberal leaker, the Post defends Bob Woodward's actions and reminds journalists about the point of protecting sources:

The longtime Post reporter disclosed this week that, while conducting research for a book, he received information from an administration official about Ms. Plame before her identity was revealed by Robert D. Novak in a July 2003 column. That information was potentially relevant to Fitzgerald's investigation and to a news story that has been extensively covered in this and other papers. Mr. Woodward said he told one Post reporter at the time what he had learned but did not disclose the source. Mr. Woodward recently testified to the prosecutor, with the source's permission and after the source had spoken with Mr. Fitzgerald, but still (again according to his agreement) has not publicly identified the source. ...

[O]ver the years innumerable cases of official corruption and malfeasance have come to light thanks to sources being able to count on confidentiality. It's astonishing to see so many people -- especially in the journalism establishment -- forget that now. Many of those who condemn Mr. Woodward applauded when The Post recently revealed the existence of CIA prisons around the world, a story that relied on unnamed sources.

Is there a distinction to be made based on the motives of the leakers? If so, Mr. Woodward might have had to pass up his first big scoops three decades ago, because his Watergate source, Deep Throat -- recently revealed as FBI official W. Mark Felt -- was disgruntled at having been passed over for the post of FBI director.

I have made this point repeatedly over the months of the Plame Flameout: journalists only believe in protecting sources when leaks come from fellow liberals and/or serve to embarrass conservatives. Mark Felt provides the perfect example. The Post's editors remind people that Felt got passed over, but forgets to remind its readers that he failed to get the promotion because of his participation in the culture of corruption that J Edgar Hoover developed at the FBI. (Even Bill Sullivan, who denounced Hoover and started leaking just before Hoover's death, would never have been considered for that position.) Felt and the other toadies that surrounded Hoover had almost as much culpability in the FBI's excesses as Hoover, if not equal. And yet the liberals in journalistic circles quickly held him up as a national hero when he revealed himself as Woodward's source -- just to make a few bucks for himself before he dies.

All of which brings us back to Judy Miller and, ironically, Bob Woodward today. Miller found herself shunned not for protecting her source, but for protecting a source that provided a defense for a conservative administration. Now Woodward finds himself in the same position, and while the tenor of the criticism has muted somewhat, he faces the same basic backbiting as Miller. It doesn't matter whether the information leads to the truth, as it turns out -- journalists only care about undermining conservatives. Leakers and the journalists that protect them had better deliver that, or else it turns out that their peers will find themselves singularly uninterested in all the First Amendment arguments they make when sources leak damaging information on conservatives rather than fellow leftists.

How ironic that the Washington Post's editors took thirty years to discover this about their peers.