As Patrick Fitzgerald tries to put Scooter Libby in prison for having a faulty memory, his witnesses seem to have trouble with their own recollections. Some of their memories, like fine wine, improve with age. If you told an FBI investigator that you had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch last Friday, and a receipt turned up showing you had a ham sandwich instead, could you be indicted for lying to a federal investigator? Special prosecutor Fitzgerald seems to think so. In his world, both you and the ham sandwich could be indicted.
Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has been indicted on charges of lying to federal investigators who were trying to figure out who "leaked" the identity of former CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame Wilson.
Never mind that her identity was already widely known, as was the identity of the real "leaker" or that even if it wasn't, revealing it was not a crime because she was not a covert operative overseas as the law requires.
Libby is on trial, essentially, because the testimony of one of the busiest men in the world about his talks with reporters such as NBC's Tim Russert and Time magazine's Matt Cooper differs from the accounts of the reporters.
Fitzgerald intends to prove Libby was lying and not merely forgetful when he said he learned about Plame's identity from reporters and not from government officials involved in a vast right-wing conspiracy to punish Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a leading Bush critic and former ambassador.
One of Fitzgerald's early witnesses, former Iraq CIA mission chief Robert L. Grenier, testified that he was certain he told Libby that the idea of sending Wilson to Niger was Plame's idea. But under cross-examination, Grenier conceded that he had not been able to recall for the FBI in December 2003 whether that conversation had occurred and was still uncertain when he testified before the grand jury in January 2004 and July 2005.
Grenier's explanation for his sudden clarity of memory 18 months after he told investigators he couldn't remember talking to Libby? "I developed a growing conviction that I must've said it," Grenier said. He recalled feeling guilty for revealing the information. "It's like, 'Wake up and smell the coffee. You must've told him.' "
Must have? Either you did or you didn't.
Another Fitzgerald witness, CIA official Craig Schmall, had to have his memory refreshed by handwritten notations in the margin of a document after he could not remember the details of a briefing with Libby in June 2003. After being shown the document and notations, Schmall testified that Libby must have mentioned Wilson and his wife then, days before Libby claimed he learned about the matter from reporter Russert.
Again, must have?
Defense lawyer John Cline made the point that if Schmall couldn't remember the details of a briefing that included discussion of more than two dozen potential terrorist threats or intelligence issues, why wasn't it plausible that Libby didn't recall every detail of that briefing?
Fitzgerald witness Marc Grossman, the former No. 3 official at the State Department, acknowledged under cross-examination making inconsistent statements during the investigation.
Grossman testified that he told Libby about Mrs. Wilson in a face-to-face meeting on June 11 or June 12, 2003. But Grossman told the FBI in October 2003 that his contacts with Libby were on the phone and not face-to-face.
Grossman testified that the first time he learned that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA was when he read a report by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. But he told the FBI he learned about Mrs. Wilson's identity before he read the report. Questioned about this, he said, "Well, if I did so, it would have been wrong, sir." So why isn't what he did obstruction of justice?
So is Libby going to be sent to prison by witnesses with poor memories themselves?
There was another point we wanted to make, but we forgot what it was.
Poster Comment:
I think this editorial sums up the crux of the case and how it is going so far. The defendent claims he had faulty memory, that he did not obstruct the FBI investigation of the Plame's CIA identity on purpose.
The prosecutor's witnesses on defense cross examination all demonstrate faulty memories.
Why are our taxpayer dollars being wasted on this circus? Are the bad guys ever going to see jail time for the phony yellowcake uranium story? Oh my, that's the thing isn't it - the faked uranium intel crime isn't part of this case nor is who leaked the CIA agent's identity. Go figure.