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: 186
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Ambassador to Israel.
#6. To: wbales (#4)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhat's Next For Libby?
Replies to Comment # 4.
#7. To: wbales (#4)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.