See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: MELTDOWN: What's Next For Libby? - "What happens next could be quite a spectacle"
Source:
ABC NEWS
URL Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/CIALeak/story?id=1259619
Published: Oct 28, 2005
Author: Mark Halperin
Post Date: 2005-10-28 17:05:03 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: spectacle", MELTDOWN:, happens
Views: 204
Comments: 28
ABC News Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in the CIA leak investigation. What happens next could be quite a spectacle. Following the charges related to the disclosure of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name, Libby submitted his letter of resignation earlier today and it was accepted, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said. The letter was delivered to Chief of Staff Andy Card, who informed President Bush. Unless Libby gets the charges thrown out or reaches a plea agreement — which, given the charges, would almost certainly mean jail time — there will be a trial. Conviction of obstruction of justice carries a fine and maximum 10 years in prison, and the false statements and perjury charges carry a fine and maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. The special counsel's press release stated "the maximum penalty for conviction on all counts is 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine." It is probable, however, that any sentence would run concurrently in this case, not consecutively. A trial would involve many prominent figures — it appears that journalists Tim Russert of NBC News, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time Magazine would be witnesses. Libby's lawyers would likely attempt to challenge their credibility. In addition, it is also clear that the roles, if any, of Cheney and others in the vice president's office in the matter will be examined. Even if Libby does plead to something, he might still have to talk more about Cheney's role. In addition, the original source of journalist Bob Novak's column — which prompted the investigation — was not indicted today. Presidential aide Karl Rove, who has been under investigation by the grand jury, so far faces no charges. Although Rove's testimony as reported differed from Cooper's, it appears that the differences weren't as material in the prosecutor's views as those involving Libby. What They've Said Miller went to jail for 85 days for refusing to cooperate with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald by revealing the source of conversations she had had about former diplomat Joseph Wilson's wife. Miller never wrote a story about Wilson or his wife and only agreed to testify before a grand jury after she said her source — who turned out to be Libby — waived her pledge of confidentiality. Miller said she had three conversations with Libby and that he suggested a tie to Wilson's wife but didn't reveal her name. However, notes she turned over to investigators contained Plame's name, though it was misspelled. Miller told prosecutors she couldn't recall who disclosed the name. Her journalistic ethics have come under scrutiny. Time's Cooper has testified before a grand jury once and talked about conversations he had with Libby and Rove. Cooper said Rove indicated that Wilson's wife worked with the CIA but did not disclose her name and did not say her work was covert. Libby, he said, confirmed Wilson's wife's connection to the CIA but also did not reveal her name or mention her status as a covert operative. Cooper testified after Time surrendered his notes and e-mail detailing a conversation he had with Rove. Novak identified Plame by name as a covert CIA operative and sparked the opening of the investigation. He is said to be cooperating with prosecutors but neither he nor his attorney have commented on his dealings with the CIA leak probe. Novak has said that the information about Plame first came from a non-partisan official as an "offhand revelation." Libby has reportedly told a grand jury that he first heard of the CIA connection to Plame from Russert. But the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" has told authorities he did not know about Plame until her identity was published and could not have been Libby's source. Another reporter, Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, also has answered Fitzgerald's questions regarding a conversation about Plame with an unidentified administration official. Under the arrangements for his testimony, Pincus did not identify his source to the investigators, who already knew the official's identity. Some of the case against Libby relies on the accounts of Russert, Miller and Cooper. But the transcript of parts of the grand jury and Libby's FBI statements make it clear that Libby's own accounts of those conversations have him allegedly claiming false things about how he knew about Plame. Political Impact Politically at least, the indictment doesn't seem like an overreach by Fitzgerald, or an easily-branded "criminalization of politics" by White House defenders. There is a reference to a conversation Libby had "in the office of the vice president." It doesn't make it clear if Cheney was involved in that conversation or not, which could be key. But the indictment does suggest Cheney's direct involvement. The theme of Libby's and Cheney's displeasure with the CIA — a frequent complaint among neo-conservatives — is mentioned. This is going to be a very important theme going forward. The indictment does not delve into Libby's motivation for learning so much about Wilson, though he allegedly was dogged in pursuing information about Wilson. There are likely a lot of politically damaging things that go along with the actions alleged in the indictment — even if there is never any conviction. It is Libby's motive for his interest in Wilson and the alleged attempts to cover up his actions, if he did them, that could lead to a wider search for answers in the press or among Democrats that could lead to a more general discussion of how the administration took the country to war in Iraq. Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name PLAMEGATE: FBI HAS NEVER EVEN INTERVIEWED ROCCO MARTIN A White House 'Hip-Deep' in Plame Scandal and Cover Up 
What's Next For Libby?
By Mark Halperin
October 28, 2005
Mr. Fitzgerald, Karl and George made me do it. Besides, 30 years is a long time.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine, OKCSubmariner (#0)
The theme of Libby's and Cheney's displeasure with the CIA — a frequent complaint among neo-conservatives — is mentioned. This is going to be a very important theme going forward. And don't forget Porter "car bomb" Goss purging the CIA of any "disloyal" career employees.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
Ah yes. Buy popcorn though. They're gonna Fight, Fight, Fight.
Ambassador to Israel.
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
Libby indictment sheds little light on Cheney's activities By BILL STRAUB WASHINGTON - I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's indictment on charges stemming from the leaking of an undercover CIA operative's identity is once again shifting focus to the hardball tactics employed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney in defense of the war in Iraq. Cheney, who served as secretary of defense under the elder President Bush during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, was an early and enthusiastic supporter of war with Iraq, aligning himself with neo-conservatives in the Pentagon. As recently as Oct. 5, Cheney was spearheading the defense of the administration's military action, telling the Association of the United States Army meeting in Washington that "by staying in this fight, we honor both the ideals and the security interests of the United States." Cheney's aggressiveness sometimes put him at odds with former CIA Director George Tenet and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who often counseled a more measured response. But he found a soul mate in Libby, his chief of staff, who was aligned so closely to the vice president that he often was described as "Cheney's Cheney." "Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known," Cheney said in a statement. "He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction." It was Cheney, ironically, who set events in motion leading to the CIA leak investigation. Sometime in early 2002, the vice president and other administration officials learned that British intelligence had gained information indicating Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999 for the purpose of acquiring yellowcake - processed uranium - leading to speculation that the government of Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. The claim, if proven true, could have gone a long way toward validating President Bush's claim that war in Iraq was necessary. Cheney sought confirmation and contacted the Central Intelligence Agency, which in turn contacted Joseph Wilson, a veteran diplomat. Wilson was dispatched to Niger to check out the story so, Wilson said, "they could provide a response to the vice president's office." After an eight-day visit, Wilson reported back that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." Still, over the next year, Bush referred to the incident obliquely, telling an audience in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." It was in his State of the Union address, on Jan. 28, 2003, that Bush finally uttered what has come to be known as the famous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Questions about the claim were raised almost immediately. On May 6, 2003, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times published a column debunking the 16 words, citing comments from an unidentified former ambassador who was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. The ambassador, obviously, was Wilson. That, according to the Libby indictment, kicked off a lot of activity in the vice president's office. On May 29, 2003, Libby contacted an undersecretary of state, who directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report about the ambassador and his trip. In late May and early June, Libby was advised that Wilson was the ambassador in question. On June 11, 2003, according to the indictment, Libby first learned that Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee who may have been responsible for sending him to Niger. On June 12, 2003, Cheney personally advised Libby that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that Cheney had received the word from the CIA. Cheney, apparently, didn't want to reveal how much he knew. On Sept. 14, 2003 - three months after imparting his knowledge to Libby - Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he didn't know anything about who sent Wilson to Niger. Wilson ultimately, on July 6, 2003, revealed his role in the Niger affair in an article appearing in the New York Times, again asserting a yellowcake sale likely never took place. Over the next few days, the administration sought to debunk Wilson's claims, telling several reporters, including Tim Russert of NBC, Matt Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times, that he was a lightweight who benefited from nepotism - that his wife employed by the CIA was partly responsible. Libby denied to the FBI and the federal grand jury that he told reporters about Wilson's CIA ties, leading to the indictment. "Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false," said special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. "He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And he lied about it afterward, under oath, repeatedly." The indictment sheds little light on Cheney's activities, other than the fact that he imparted information about Wilson to Libby. "The full facts of the case, including the role of Vice President Cheney, will come out at Libby's trial," said Rep. Jame Harmon, D-Calif., ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence." "But one thing is beyond dispute - senior officials at the White House set out to discredit Ambassador Wilson, who contradicted the administration's claim that Iraq was acquiring nuclear material. They did this in an insidious way, by exposing the identity of his wife, who served courageously overseas and took enormous risks for the security of the United States."
And the Nobel Peace Prize. Text of Fitzgerald news conference By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A text of the statement by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald at Friday's news conference on the CIA leak investigation, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions: FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation. Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation. A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements. Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context. Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson. Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation. I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason. It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held. So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works. Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts. It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged. Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that. That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. And, given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts. There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public. And, as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't. And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date. But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth. It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear. And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time. Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate. That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs. 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. 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 an 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly. Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us. We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different. But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law. But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules. So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity. Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system. I would be remiss at this point if I didn't thank the team of investigators and prosecutors who worked on it, led by Agent Eckenrode, or particularly the staff under John Dion from the counterespionage section in the Department of Justice; Mr. (Peter) Zeidenberg from Public Integrity, as well as the agents from the Washington field office and my close friends in the Chicago U.S. attorney's office, all of whom contributed to a joint effort.
Execution is my recommendation. Put the fear of God in them thar bastards.
That's a little odd. Should Libby be convicted of bad wordsmithing to reporters? No, he is being charged with lying to the Feds, so Fitzgerald should talk about what lies Libby said to the feds, not what he didn't say to reporters. Other than that quibble, a pretty good speech, thanks for posting it.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
My guess is that we will see an extended trial and The Scooter will eventualy serve 10 months and be on probation for a year. Then as bush leaves office in '08, he will pardon Old Scoot, leaving Libby the option of running for congress in '10.
"Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job." "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
Execution is my recommendation. Poppa Bush agrees. See above. Lol.
For five years he did his best to serve which country?! For the best interests of whom?! Miller sat in jail for 85 days for Libby, but he's only being accused of any crimes due to poor "recollection"...and besides it is all political...and because he loves his country (nevermind which one),... and because his mother used to dress him funny...and the Aspens, the Aspens, the roots, changing colors...bye, bye Scooter.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
You hear it here first.............. Drrrrrruuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm rollllllllllllllllllllllll!!! We are going to see a case of Libbycide OR someone hauling ass to Israel due to a probably case of dual citizenship. Dumb ass lawyer. There is NO WAY they will let the administration be pulled down with a trial. Gopers have lousy track records while the demons will sense blood.
bye, bye Scooter I don't know. I'm thinking Bush may nominate Scooter for the Supreme Court. Can you imagine? Judge Scooter. Nothing surprises me anymore
He's taking one for the team.
Yep, all he has to do is keep his month shut about Cheney and Rove, and he'll get that Presidential Pardon he's been promised. Richard W.
I agree. The press will repeat over and over "indicted on charges stemming from the administration's outing of a CIA agent" but without any more charges it's not going to look like much. Maybe Fitzgerald thought he could squeeze Libby into testifying or maybe he has another underling or two lined up who will cave more easily, but he won't get any farther if this is all he's got.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
Yep, all he has to do is keep his month shut about Cheney and Rove, and he'll get that Presidential Pardon he's been promised. Yes, this is a team effort. And a family tradition. Bush's last controversial act in office was his pardon of six former government employees implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal on December 24, 1992, most prominently former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger had been scheduled to stand trial on January 5, 1993 for lying to Congress regarding his knowledge of arms sales to Iran and concealing 1700 pages of his personal diary detailing discussions with other officials about the arms sales. As Weinberger's private notes contained references to Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran, some believe that Bush's pardon was an effort to prevent an order for Bush to appear before a grand jury or possibly to avoid an indictment. Weinberger's indictment stated that Weinberger's notes contradicted Bush's assertions that he had only peripheral knowledge of the arms for hostages deal. Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel assigned to the case, charged that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed." Walsh likened the pardons to President Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Bush responded that the Walsh probe constituted an attempt to criminalize a policy dispute between the legislative and executive branches. In addition to Weinberger, Bush pardoned Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Robert C. McFarlane, Elliott Abrams, and Alan G. Fiers Jr., all of whom had been indicted and/or convicted of charges by the Independent Counsel.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
Based on the Fitzgerald press conference, I don't think there are going to be any more indictments. It sounded like the "continuing investigation" is just the usual wrapping up after the main investigation.
Libby's indictments are being pulled as I write this. I just got an e-mail from Newsmax, and I can tell you definitively, the serious charges have been dropped. Libby will be exonerated. Nothing will come of this, and ROVE IS SQUEAKY CLEAN. It is going down the way I said it would. Notice the push for the new Supreme Court Nominee????
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
#2. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
There is a reference to a conversation Libby had "in the office of the vice president." It doesn't make it clear if Cheney was involved in that conversation or not, which could be key. But the indictment does suggest Cheney's direct involvement.
#3. To: robin (#2)
#4. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
What's Next For Libby?
#5. To: robin (#2)
Scripps Howard News Service
October 28, 2005
#6. To: wbales (#4)
#7. To: wbales (#4)
#8. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
What's Next For Libby?
#9. To: Uncle Bill (#6)
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."
#10. To: rowdee (#8)
#11. To: robin, christine (#7)
Former President George H. W. Bush - Compliments to Ambassador Joseph Wilson - Source
Former President George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999. Source.
Dad?
#12. To: rowdee (#8)
#13. To: Uncle Bill (#3)
#14. To: Uncle Bill (#6)
#15. To: robin (#13)
#16. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
What's Next For Libby?
I've already said too much.
#17. To: Soda Pop (#10)
Then as bush leaves office in '08, he will pardon Old Scoot
#18. To: MUDDOG (#16)
He's taking one for the team.
#19. To: Arete, Soda Pop, MUDDOG, Uncle Bill (#17)
Then as bush leaves office in '08, he will pardon Old Scoot
#20. To: robin, purpleman (#19)
I've already said too much.
#21. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
 | So many morons, so few bullets. |
#22. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
NO...I WANT THEM TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY!!!
It is probable, however, that any sentence would run concurrently in this case, not consecutively.
#23. To: robin (#22)
A Grave Indictment, but Grave Questions Remain The Nation If a senior White House official leaks classified information that identifies an undercover CIA officer to reporters in order to undermine a critic of the administration, he is not entitled to lie about it to FBI agents and a grand jury charged with the task of determining if such a leak violated the law. That was special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's message, as he held a dramatic press conference at the Justice Department to explain the five-count indictment his grand jury issued against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a very serious matter," he insisted. The indictment charged Libby with two counts of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of committing perjury (by lying twice to the grand jury) and one count of obstruction of justice. All these charges referred to Libby's account of how he came to learn of Valerie Wilson, the undercover CIA official who was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a White House critic, and who was outed in a July 14, 2003 Bob Novak column. During interviews with FBI agents and in his testimony before the grand jury, Libby--who, before the Novak column was published, told Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA--repeatedly claimed that he was merely passing along information he had heard from other reporters. For instance, on March 5, 2004, Libby, answering questions about a July 12, 2003 conversation with Cooper, told the grand jury, All I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters....I said, reporters are telling us that [about Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA]. I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know--I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing. On March 24, 2004, Libby, in another appearance before the grand jury, said, All I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true....So I wanted to be clear they [the reporters to whom he spoke] didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know if it [the information about Valerie Wilson] was true, and I wanted them to understand that. But, according to the indictment, Libby had actively gathered information on Joseph Wilson and his wife after newspaper stories appeared about a trip that Joseph Wilson had taken to Niger for the CIA in February 2002, during which he had concluded that the allegation that Iraq had been shopping there for weapon- grade uranium was highly dubious. In May 2003, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, using Wilson as a source, wrote about this trip without naming Wilson. The Washington Post did the same the following month. And on July 6, 2003, Wilson published an op-ed piece in the Times describing his mission to Niger and his findings, which undercut the Bush administration's use of the Niger allegation in making a case for war. In late May 2003--after the first Kristof column and before Wilson went public with his op-ed--Libby asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information on the unnamed ambassador's trip to Niger. Grossman ordered the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the ambassador and the trip and subsequently told Libby that Wilson had been the ambassador. On June 9, 2003, according to the indictment, classified CIA documents that covered Wilson and the Niger trip (without mentioning Wilson by name) were faxed from the CIA to Libby. Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby, the indictment says, that "Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." About that time, Libby spoke with a senior CIA officer, who also informed Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Also about the time, the indictment states, Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife was employed at the CIA in the counterproliferation division. This is an intriguing fact. Usually in Washington, principles ask their subordinates to dig up information for them. Apparently, Cheney was doing his own fact-finding on the Wilson front. The indictment does not explain what Cheney was up to or why. It notes that "Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." Cheney had a back-channel behind his back-channel (Libby). Libby was not done gathering information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson. On or about June 14, 2003--still weeks before Wilson's op-ed article appeared-- Libby, according to the indictment, met with a CIA briefer and "discussed with the briefer, among other things, 'Joseph Wilson' and his wife 'Valerie Wilson' in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger." (Fitzgerald's use of quotation marks in this passage of the indictment suggests he has notes from this meeting.) Libby, as depicted in the indictment, was aware of the sensitive nature of the material he had collected on the Wilsons. When an assistant asked if information on Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the charge that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger (an allegation never made by Wilson, who had said that his trip was a response to a request that had come to the CIA from Cheney's office), Libby told his aide that he could not talk about this topic on a nonsecure telephone line. Yet days later--on June 23, 2003--Libby met with Judy Miller and told her that Wilson's wife might work at the CIA. And the day after Joseph Wilson's op-ed piece appeared, Libby had lunch with White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and informed him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, adding that this was not widely known. That week, Libby twice more discussed Valerie Wilson with Miller. And on July 10 or 11, 2003, Libby, according to the indictment, spoke to a senior White House official--identified as "Official A" and possibly White House aide Karl Rove--who told Libby that earlier in the week he (Official A) had discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA employment with Novak, who would be writing a column about her. If the indictment is correct, Libby was not only in the loop regarding Valerie Wilson and her connection to the CIA; he had helped to create it. Yet Fitzgerald's indictment quotes Libby declaring over and over he only had heard- -and passed along--scuttlebutt received from other reporters. To prop up this cover story, Libby told the FBI agents that it had been NBC News' Tim Russert who had said to him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA and that "all the reporters knew it." Russert told the grand jury that he had not discussed Wilson's wife with Libby and that in this particular conversation Libby had complained to him about an MSNBC reporter (who goes unnamed in the indictment). Libby appears to have concocted a rather clumsy cover story, especially in that he pointed to a specific reporter as his source--Russert--for the information on Valerie Wilson that he shared with Miller and Cooper. A reasonable assumption is that even if Libby was not a source for the Novak column that identified Valerie Wilson, he was attempting to distance himself-- and perhaps Cheney--from the administration's effort to find and leak information on Wilson and his wife (even if it might be classified) to undercut Wilson's criticism. During the press conference, Fitzgerald noted that Libby was the first official who talked to a reporter about Valerie Wilson when he discussed her with Miller on June 23, 2003. Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby seems rather tight. Libby said he knew nothing about Wilson's wife except what he had heard from reporters. Fitzgerald has compiled what looks like solid evidence that Libby was actively collecting information on Joseph Wilson and his wife. And if this case goes to trial, possible witnesses for the prosecution include Russert, Fleischer, Grossman, Libby's principle deputy, a CIA briefer, Official A, and Cheney. Libby could be sentenced up to 30 years if found guilty of all counts. Libby, the first senior White House official to be indicted since the Ulysses Grant administration, is in serious legal trouble. Is anyone else? Fitzgerald's grand jury expired on Friday. But he has asked the presiding judge to keep a grand jury available for him because he has not completed his investigation. His probe, he said at the press conference, is "not quite done." Then he quickly added, "But I don't want to add to a feverish pitch. It's very, very routine that you keep a grand jury available for what you might need." He noted that the "substantial bulk of the work" has been completed. But he said, "Let's let the process take place." How to read this? Not over, but mostly finished. Fitzgerald seemed a man who was rather close to the end of a long and tough endeavor, and he yielded no hint of any indictments to come. He certainly did not signal or say, "Stay tuned." Does that mean this leak investigation could end only with Libby indicted--not for participating in the leak but for lying about his pre-leak actions? That's possible. And Fitzgerald, sticking to the rules of grand jury investigations, refused to reveal any information about the case that was not included in the indictment. Who were Novak's sources for the leak? Fitzgerald wouldn't say. Is Official A a new name for Mr. X--the term used by reporters to refer to Novak's original source? Fitzgerald didn't say. Might Rove be Official A? Fitzgerald didn't say. Why did the leak refer to Valerie Wilson by her maiden name of Plame? Fitzgerald didn't say. What sort of cooperation did Fitzgerald receive from Novak (who presumably spilled all to Fitzgerald, otherwise he would have landed in the slammer like Miller)? Fitzgerald didn't say. Was Cheney in cahoots with Libby regarding the latter's false testimony? Fitzgerald didn't say. How much damage was done to the CIA and its operations by the leak? Fitzgerald didn't say. What about George W. Bush? What did he know about Rove's involvement in the leak and when did he know it? No reporter at the press conference even asked about this. Fitzgerald did not share much beyond the information he had to disclose in order to indict Libby. He did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy rightwing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.) And he passionately countered the pre-indictment criticism from Republicans and others who argued that bringing perjury and obstruction of justice charges--rather than accusing anyone of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or other laws that apply to leaking classified information--would be a cheap shot or an act of prosecutorial overreaching. He explained that he and his investigators were assigned the job of investigating the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and determining if any laws--not one particular statute, such as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--were violated. In such an inquiry, he said, "fine distinctions" are critical, and consequently, it is "important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth." In this probe, that included Libby. Fitzgerald indicated he had considered the possibility of charging leakers with violating the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for government officials to disseminate classified information--to unauthorized individuals. Using the Espionage Act in this manner, some media and legal experts have claimed, would lead to an Official Secrets Act, but Fitzgerald said he didn't accept that analysis. Still, he called this act "a difficult statue to interpret." And he chose not to indict anyone--yet--for violating it. He also defended his choice to pursue Miller and Cooper and to seek Miller's imprisonment, citing a special need for their testimony. ("I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely," he said.) When asked about detractors who have accused him of being partisan, he replied, "for which party?" Fitzgerald knows far more than what is in the Libby indictment. But the American public may never learn what he has uncovered. There might be no further indictments, and Fitzgerald dismissed the idea of writing a final report. He said that he does not have the authority to issue such a document-- and that he does not believe a special counsel should have that authority. Independent counsels used to have the obligation to craft a final report that detailed their investigation and findings and explained decisions to prosecute and not prosecute. But the independent counsel law expired, and Fitzgerald is operating as a special counsel pursuant to Justice Department rules that do not provide for the production of a final report and that do compel prosecutors to keep grand jury material that is not used for an indictment or trial confidential. Feeling the reporter's pain, Fitzgerald remarked, "I know that people want to know whatever it is we know....We just can't do that....We either charge someone or we don't talk about them." Which means that after the government has paid for a two-year investigation, the public may be left in the dark about much of what happened in the leak case. The leakers may never be held accountable. Rove's role, Bush's knowledge, Cheney's potential involvement--all of that could remain a secret, even though Fitzgerald has apparently dug deep and unearthed much of the tale. When a reporter asked Fitzgerald if he had learned how Washington works, he replied, "Yes," and said no more. The Libby indictment does stand as a significant development. Libby was an influential aide for an influential veep in an administration that has often been accused of lying to get its way--such as during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. And he has been charged with putting himself above the law and undermining an investigation initiated by his administration's Justice Department. On January 22, 2001, Bush, while swearing in the new White House staff, said, "We must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules....We are all accountable to one another. And above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the American people." Libby, who quickly resigned after the indictment was released, has fallen. But Rove, who also leaked classified information by passing information on Wilson's wife to Cooper and Novak, has violated White House rules and Bush's self-proclaimed standards, if not the law itself. He has not been held accountable yet, and that task may be beyond Fitzgerald's reach. Nor have Bush and Rove explained why the White House misled the public when it denied Rove and Libby were involved in the leak. Neither have accepted responsibility for that. As for Libby, Bush, in a brief statement, said he was "saddened" by the news of his indictment. He said nothing about the ethical standards of his White House. In politics and policy, lying is not always illegal. And it's easy to see why officials in this White House might think they can escape being held accountable for prevaricating. But Libby seems to have lied to the wrong guy in the wrong forum. "Truth is the engine of our judicial system," Fitzgerald declared while explaining the gravity of the Libby indictment. And this is a grave indictment. It just doesn't answer many grave questions that still remain in the CIA leak affair.
October 28, 2005 Source
#24. To: Uncle Bill (#23)
A Grave Indictment, but Grave Questions Remain Pshaw; written in The Nation ...
#25. To: Uncle Bill (#23)
That begs the question, "why?"
He (Rove) has not been held accountable yet, and that task may be beyond Fitzgerald's reach.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
#26. To: _Jim (#24)
Much of it written before today from the looks of it. They just edited out the part about Rove being indicted.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
#27. To: MUDDOG (#16)
Got that right. From everything I have heard, Libby is brillant, he knows facts and names at the drop of a hat. Everyone is dumbfounded at how stupid he was to lie over this, which begs the question, who is he taking the fall for? Cheney of course. Hope Cheney is worth 30 years in jail. I don't think ole Fitz is quite done with Rove yet. Wonder what the 11th hour info was that Rove's attorney passed on that made Fitz blink?
He's taking one for the team.
Bush: Worst. President. EVER.
#28. To: justlurking (#27)
Whatever it was, Luskin sure earned his fee. Rove should give him a bonus.
Wonder what the 11th hour info was that Rove's attorney passed on that made Fitz blink?
I've already said too much.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest