I am sitting here reading the papers and listening to MSNBC, and the anchoress posed the question (and I paraphrase)- “Does the new admission from Woodward hurt the case against Scooter Libby?” the question seemed to echo this Reuters write-up:
“It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it,” Wilson said, joining media critics in questioning the role of one of the best-known investigative reporters in the United States.
Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath on Monday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame’s position at the CIA.
Woodward’s testimony appeared to contradict Fitzgerald’s assertion that Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, was the first official known to have told a reporter about Plame.
I simply don’t get how this weakens the case against Libby. Now, granted, I am not a lawyer, but I think two things stand out:
1.) Libby was charged with several counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, which are all crimes that actually have nothing to do with the leak, but have everything to do with making investigating the leak difficult. They are post-crime crimes, if you will. In other words, as I see it, whether or not Libby was the first or the last to blab to a reporter is utterly irrelevant- he is charged with lying and obstruction of justice, not outing an agent.
2.) Fitzgerald never said Libby was the first to disclose Plame’s name to reporters. He said he was the first ‘known’ to have blabbed to reporters. Regardless, he was never chartged with that, anyway.
Now, if people want to argue that this information somehow makes the case against Rove less likely, they may be on to something. If they want to argue that the possibility of further charges against Libby for actually leaking Plame’s name is diminished, they may have a point. But not right now, as far as I can tell.
Boombo
John, you want the lawyers and spinners to employ fact and logic? Silly, silly man.
neil
You’re correct, John, it has nothing to do with Libby lying. It is part of Libby’s lawyer’s job to make everything sound like good news for his client.
As for the media, it is their job to uncritically reprint lies which benefit Republicans.
ppGaz
First of all, consider the source. The MSNBC Morning News Babes? They’re beautiful and all, but they have a combined IQ of about 94. You are not exactly looking at the female versions of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.
Second, we live in the blahsphere … the sphere in which relentless speech from tv talking heads and bloggers drowns out all the energy in the universe …. and we are shocked — shocked! — to find out that these noisemakers are imprecise and sloppy about facts?
What part of that don’t you get?
Lines
Fitz’s whole claim is that a crime was committed, but due to the obstruction of justice from people like Libby, the proof of such a crime doesn’t exist.
So how does Woody fit into that explanation? I think he’s just complicit in the obstruction as well. That just begins to create another charge against the whole lot of them of conspiracy to obstruct.
Shygetz
It’s not legal to commit perjury and obstruction of justice even if no other crime was committed. John is dead-on–this only has relevance in the court of public opinion. It shouldn’t even have relevance on the prosecution of Rove–as I understand it, unless the information has been formally declassified, it doesn’t matter who knows it. You still can’t blab.
Paddy O'Shea
Fitz is convening another Grand Jury with the purpose of carrying on the Plame investigation. That coupled with the addition of a marquee name like Woodward to the mix will have the effect of keeping this story in the headlines for a long time.
I seriously doubt this is what the Bush admin was looking for right now.
Vladi G
I imagine one line of argument is that Libby can now say he heard it first from Woodward, and he just misremembered which reporter he heard it from when he said Russert. I think he’s still boned, but I would imagine that this would be an argument.
I think Woodward is totally full of shit and Atrios is right. If he heard this information in just an off the cuff casual conversation, why the need for confidentiality? And even if he kept the source confidential, why didn’t he share the information when he heard it?
Jay
Fitz is convening another Grand Jury with the purpose of carrying on the Plame investigation
Fitz can’t just convene a grand jury on his own. He has to get a federal judge to give him the ok. I’m interested in seeing your source for this. It’s my understanding that the thing is pretty much done.
Geek, Esq.
Attorneys are professional bamboozlers.
LIBBY has very good ones working for him.
Journalists have no clue on legal issues and often serve as lawyers’ stenographers.
Jcricket
I cut and paste this into a comment thread yesterday, from Fitz’ press conference on the indictment:
IOW, the Woodward revelations ™ merely confirms several things Fitz has alleged or hinted at.
* Multiple WH officials talked to multiple reporters
* Those same WH officials lied and said reporters told them about Plame
* Those same WH officials obviously did this all around the same time, making it likely a criminal conspiracy occured (assuming their disclosures were crimes).
* Bush is now going back on his word about firing anyone involved for at least three people in his administration (Rove, Libby, Hadley).
As more honest reporters (like Pincus) realize that administration is trying to pin this on them, I expect even more forceful testimony from them about what really happened, strengthening Fitz’ case to charge the administration officials with the underlying crime.
This is getting worse for Bush and Cheney, not better.
ppGaz
Where would that understanding come from, inasmuch as Fitzgerald’s only statement to that topic was that he was not done?
Slightly off topic, what’s with the affectation of calling him “Fitz” as if you guys drink beer with they guy?
Does that make you sound like you know more than you do?
Paddy O'Shea
Jay: Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones News via Daily Kos.
Looks like Fitz is just getting started.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/17/123816/81
Steve
It doesn’t weaken the case against Libby in the slightest. As Kevin Drum notes, this merely serves to extend the long list of multiple administration sources who leaked to multiple reporters, with the overarching story being that every such leak was merely a casual conversational mention, with no ill intent whatsoever. The more such leaks we hear about, the clearer it becomes that this was was a planned and systematic leak. In any event, the new revelations certainly have no relevance to the allegations of perjury.
Paddy O'Shea
ppGaz: Um, no.
Mr Furious
Agreed. This whole “weakening the case” thing has really been annoying to me. Libby’s case is all after the fact perjury and obstruction stuff. This has no impact except to enhance the fatigue factor on the whole affair.
If they throw enough crap out in the blogosphere people will stop paying attention for now, and the “leakiness” of the White house might water down the impact of a single Libby leak, but I don’t really see how this inhibits Fitz on Libby’s existing case or any case he is still building.
As far as further entanglements, the only person I can see feeling secure in this is Cheney. Someone will fall on their sword for him, and technically (going way out on an limb of ignorance here) as VP he can de-classify anything he wants, meaning he can’t be charged with the leak if he is the source?
ppGaz
Okay, it’s just to save keystrokes then. Glad we cleared that up.
But seriously, where does the endless stream of morons come from around here?
“Fitz” is done? WTF? Has he said he was done? Is he acting like he is done? Would any informed observation of the proceedings lead to a conclusion that he is done?
Shouldn’t there be a virtual death penalty for people who just post nonsensical crap that they pulled out of their asses?
Yes, I realize that Darrell and Stormy would have to go in that case, but ….. is that really the end of life on the planet?
Mr Furious
As far as me calling him “Fitz” I always catch myself typing Fitzpatrick and when I don’t catch it, I look like a jackass.
Steve
I’ve seen this argument that Cheney has some magical ability to de-classify information, but it seems clearly wrong to me. The Vice-President has no constitutional authority whatsoever, at least not in the Executive Branch.
scs
You guys are just clinging to Fitzmas hope. This official, Mr. X, is probably the same former official who first told Novak about Plame. He, like Novak, was also supposed to have been cooperating with Fitz from the beginning. For those of you lambasting the admin because of this Mr. X., Fitz knew who he was and was satisfied that he was not involved in the crimes. This source must have proved to Fitz that he got his information in an innocent way and did not realize Plame was covert and didn’t realize it was a big deal to talk about her. According to Fitz, Libby was supposed to have told reporters before Mr. X told reporters. However, Mr. X neglected to tell Fitz that he told OTHER reporters way before he told Novak.
This weakens Fitz’s case in two ways. First, if the witness did not cooperate completely about all the reporters he told in the beginning, he may also “forgeting” other reporters whom he mentioned it to, which weakens his and Fitz’s credibility. Second, since Mr. X did tell other reporters, such as Woodward, it is possible Libby can claim that Woodward told him first, or claim that Woodward told some other reporter, like Pincus, who told Libby about it, but Libby can’t “remember” which reporter actually told him and claim Fitz can’t prove the other reporter isn’t lying or forgetting about it.
In other words to prove perjury, you have to actually PROVE what the person testified was false. Since it is now MUCH harder to prove that there is NO undiscovered reporter out there who told Libby about Plame before Cheney told him, like he claims, the perjury charge is much weakened, especially now that there is no underlying crime.
And by the way, PP Gaz, I call him Fitz cause I’m too lazy to type out Fitzgerald.
ppGaz
Well then you should start paying attention, son. Fitz (sic) as much as proved the case at his news conference. All you have to do is type out onto a sheet of paper the stories told by Libby, and you have proof of falsity. They cannot be true because they contradict each other and the testimony of others. It’s not rocket science.
It’s the “she’s my sister, she’s my daughter!” defense. Maybe she is, and maybe she is, but we are going to need to talk to your dad now, if you get my drift.
scs
Well maybe someone can refresh my memory. The main perjury charge was that Libby said he heard about Plame first from a reporter, but Fitz contends he actually heard it first from Cheney. That’s the gist of it right?
Jon H
Steve writes: “I’ve seen this argument that Cheney has some magical ability to de-classify information, but it seems clearly wrong to me. The Vice-President has no constitutional authority whatsoever, at least not in the Executive Branch.”
Whether he has authority to declassify or not, there still has to be a mandatory declassification review before something is actually declassified.
It’s not like they can declassify anything they want, on a whim, without giving other agencies a chance to say “Oh, you don’t want to do that”, or maybe even “You can’t do that”.
The only likely exception I can think of would be material Cheney classified himself, and which doesn’t get into the business of anyone else’s turf.
Jon H
Jay writes: “Fitz can’t just convene a grand jury on his own. He has to get a federal judge to give him the ok. I’m interested in seeing your source for this. It’s my understanding that the thing is pretty much done.”
My understanding is that there is *always* a grand jury seated in DC, addressing various cases that come up.
Fitzgerald can present evidence to that grand jury. He doesn’t need a grand jury seated just for his case.
Sherard
I believe the key to this is whether or not Libby’s testimony was “material” to the case. If not, it isn’t perjury, nor likely, is it obstruction, either.
This short desctiption shows that if no crime was committed in the first place, your testimony cannot be “material” to the case.
Woodward’s new testimony tends to further deflate ANY debate whatsoever as to whether or not any “crime” was committed in releasing Plame’s identity to reporters. If the person who originally told Woodward about her did not know she was covert or classified, it’s harder still to prove that someone else DID know. At that point, without a crime, there is nothing for Libby’s testimony to be material TO.
Pb
scs,
I like cloak-and-dagger stuff as much as anyone, but is there any real reason for us to not call him by his name–Karl Rove?
Pb
Disregard that. I was thinking of “Official A”, wasn’t I. Argh. Also disregard the part about me liking cloak-and-dagger stuff then.
Paddy O'Shea
pp: Wishing Fitz would be done is the rightwing version of “Fitzmas.”
It is also known on the right as “Mommy! Make It Go Away!” Day.
scs
Yes I don’t know if I heard him called ‘X’ or I just made that up. FYI I just read Tom Maguires(sp?) blog and he thinks Mr.X is most likely former official Richard Armitage. However I remember Bob Novak describing his source as a former NON PARTISAN official, and I don’t think people would call Armitage that. It seems that there is an article in the Wall Street Journal today which lists all the current and former officials who have denied being X. Seems like it’s pretty much everyone, except Armitage. Still the mystery continues.
Steve
I like scs’s theory that Fitzgerald must put every single reporter in the universe on the witness stand and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not Libby’s source. Would that it were true.
Lines
Sorry, Sherard, as we all learned during the Clinton years, even if you are questioned about something immaterial to the case and you tell a lie, you’re guilty of perjury.
The only thing that the lack of a crime would absolve Libby from would be the Conspiracy and Obstruction charges, and even then I’m not sure. Since no one was charged with a crime during the first grand-jury, obstruction was used because they couldn’t determine if a crime was committed for sure.
So it could go either way. It might absolve him from one or more charges, but in reality I expect Libby to plead out long before the case ever goes to court.
scs
Well Lines, it depends. As we learned from Clinton, it DOES have to be material for a courtroom lie. However as we learned from Martha, you can’t lie to Federal Officials, whether it’s material or not. I’m not sure where a Grand Jury falls there. Actually I’m just guessing on that, we need a lawyer to inform us.
scs
Well it IS hard to prove a negative. Fitz would have to reasonably show that there was no other likely way for Libby to have gotten his info OTHER than Cheney. But as we now know that Woodward and Pincus knew before Libby, and Pincus (or Woodward) was already caught in a contradiction on whether Woodward told Pincus, how can Pincus be believed that he didn’t tell Libby? And already Woodward says he can’t “remember” whether he told Libby about Plame. So already there is reasonable doubt for Libby. A jury is not likely to put someone away for 30 years on all these doubts.
ppGaz
Well, not exactly, and I am speaking without notes and without the work product of the office.
What “Fitz” is saying, IIUHC, is that Libby’s story cannot be true unless most of the other stories are not true. Based on the preponderance of testimony, his story can’t be true because it is too much contradicted. If ten people say A, and one says B, you have to wonder what is going on. Is the latter person just mistaken? Or, if you construct a timeline of who said what when, does it appear that the latter person is deliberately trying to spin you away from the truth?
Mr. Fitzgerald is trained and gets paid to figure these things out. I have no problem believing that he will, and I have a hunch that the crowd of lying cocksuckers in the White House are going to get their comeuppance in the fullness of time.
The crap that passes for comment in here, notwithstanding.
Dig?
Pb
scs,
Well, this is Novak we’re talking about. Based on some of his previous (mis-)statements about his sources, if he said his source was really a cute little kitten, I’d start looking for a rotweiler.
Anyhow, I believe what he said was that the source was “no partisan gunslinger”, which would rule out Rove, but perhaps not a partisan career bureaucrat (no “gunslinging” involved). I guess it depends on what the definition of “gunslinger” is.
Geek, Esq.
There are 7-8 different times when LIBBY either discussed or heard about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA before he talked with Russert.
Either everyone in the Bush administration is a liar, or Scooter is.
Well, maybe both.
scs
Libby didn’t just say he heard it from Russert. He said he also heard if from other reporters whom he can’t “remember”. If Woodward claims he can’t “remember” if he told Libby about Plame, and records show that they talked during that time period, Libby is in the clear.
Sojourner
Libby’s own notes (taken at the time) contradict his testimony.
Steve
There is absolutely, positively, no requirement that there has to be an underlying crime for a perjury conviction. “Material” simply means it has to relate to the substance of the case.
For example, there’s a good argument that Clinton’s lie at his deposition wasn’t material, because his relationship with Monica had nothing to do with the issue in the case, which was whether he harassed Paula Jones. However, the judge had already ruled that was an appropriate subject area for questioning, so I don’t think that argument is available.
If they had asked Libby, for example, whether or not he participated in Dick Cheney’s energy task force, and he lied about it, that would not be material in regards to the investigation of the Plame leak, so he couldn’t be convicted of perjury for it.
scs
Steve, are there different standards for a trial, grand jury, or just plain old Federal officials, or is it all the same? I think lying to the police is legal, no?
Lines
Ah, thanks Steve, I forgot that a Judge ruled that it was appropriate, that clarifies things for both scs and myself, I hope.
I assume that what you are saying is that as long as Judge approves the line of questioning or doesn’t strike down the line of questioning as immaterial, perjury can occur even if no one is ever indicted of the crime being investigated.
Paddy O'Shea
According to Raw Story Woodward’s source is Bush Nat’l Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. They are reporting that this is the information Woodward gave to Fitzgerald recently.
Funny if you think about it. If true Woodward could well be on his way to bringing down his second corrupt GOP regime. Whether he really wanted to or not.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Advisor_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html
Steve
Lying to the feds is illegal because there is a federal statute that criminalizes it. Whether lying to your local police is legal would be a function of state law.
This gives me an opportunity to bring up one of my favorite urban myths, most often scene in the context of ticket scalping and undercover drug busts, the idea that the police are not allowed to lie to YOU. Not so! Yes, it’s a double standard, but that is how the Man keeps you down.
Steve S
Interesting. You don’t normally see rightwing moonbat talking points so prominently in a Reuters article.
This journalist should probably be sent back to gradeschool.
ppGaz
Please try it out and report back to us.
ppGaz
How Sixties of you.
kl
Don’t forget to wave your cane at them.
ppGaz
Sure, make fun of a guy who can barely post by holding a stick in his teeth and pecking at the keyboard.
Anyway, gotta go. Time for Teletubbies!
Gary Farber
“I simply don’t get how this weakens the case against Libby.”
It doesn’t.
What puzzles me is that you don’t seem to realize — or why would you ask? — that the only people claiming otherwise are the defense lawyers, who spin this like mad to every reporter they can, and other Libby defenders who pick up on it just like they pick up on any handy lie that’s useful to the defense. (Okay, and the dupes too dopey to realize that that’s what they’re repeating.)
Steve
The same phenomenon has occurred in Tom DeLay’s case, where every time someone sneezes, DeLay’s aggressive defense lawyers immediately proclaim it as the smoking gun which ends the case, and the righty bloggers all nod their heads in unison.
The Disenfranchised Voter
No clarfication needed John. Your post is spot on. Libby’s lawyers are being dishonest (lawyers dishonest?) by saying this hurts the case against Libby.
scs
Okay please explain to me how this DOESN’T change the case. Like I said, I am not completely familiar with what the exact perjury charges are – (note to self -must go look up). My feeling is that the charge is that Libby said he heard about Plame from various reporters first before he heard it from Cheney. (This was a weird lie anyway, because it was perfectly legal for him to hear about it from Cheney.) He said he thought it may be Russert but he didn’t remember exactly who. This was considered a pretty clear lie because his own notes show Libby getting all kinds of info from Cheney and the CIA about Plame, way before he spoke to any known reporters about her. Also Fitz could have shown that it was unlikely that any reporter Libby spoke to during this time had any inside knowledge of Plame.
Now Libby can say he was mistaken and say it was Woodward who told him. Woodward knew about Plame also way before Libby took up any of these Plame inquiries. I believe records show the two did speak during this time period. Woodward claims he doesn’t “remember” if he told Libby or not, in other words, implying it’s possible he did tell Libby. There goes the reasonable doubt, Libby gets off.
Where is the logic wrong here? I can’t write it any clearer than that. Before you spin, please point out how this doesn’t help. To phrase the converse of how some of you say it, the lefties are grasping at straws, believing any leftie defenders, and wondering just how did the Grinch Steal Fitzmas.
scs
And by the way, I am not convinced that this isn’t the truth. First of all, it was strange that Libby would lie about not hearing it from Cheney, as it is perfectly legal to do so. Second of all, the way Woodward put his head down during this whole thing, it’s possible Libby was trying to protect Woodward by not mentioning him specifically. Potentially Woodward might have been afraid he himself would get charged for blowing classified info for telling Pincus or any other person he told. Third of all Woodward seems to have a pretty good pipeline to all the officials and reporters, and it is possible he did start blabbing it around, trying to get more info it. So maybe this latest twist is the truth after all.
kl
Get the nurse to type for you.