Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From the Washington Times
Withdraw the Libby indictment
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 17, 2005


Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.
In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty. Moreover, as argued by Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey in an article appearing on today's op-ed page, under the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
I'm not sure why this is material. The indictment is based on Libby's statements, including:

(quoted from the indictment)
3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President.

4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2)

2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,” defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:

During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.

3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:

LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
So maybe woodward told him a month earlier, who cares. They're not after Libby on the charge of leaking classified material, but for perjury and obstruction. The indictment also indicates that Libby was told of Plame's status prior to June 27 (June 12th, by the Undersecretary of State, for example), so one must assume there is some evidence of this, for the grand jury to have acted on it. Additional evidence that Libby knew of Plame's status prior to July, 2003 hurts his case, it doesn't help it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
Perjury and obstruction matters.

Edit: ANOTHER post of "read this story" and absolutley no personal opinion or comment. I can go to Yahoo News and skip this forum entirely if this is where we're going with posts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
Sharky said:
Gosh, I wonder why the Washington Times would push this story so hard?
The same reason the networks did tonight?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
probably trying to pin the blame on woodward to keep the white house out of trouble, because i the bush administarion is already plagued with bad enough poll numbers, if libby is found guilty, the approval rating will go down even further, which i hope it does
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Dirty Dan said:
probably trying to pin the blame on woodward to keep the white house out of trouble, because i the bush administarion is already plagued with bad enough poll numbers, if libby is found guilty, the approval rating will go down even further, which i hope it does
Bob Woodward is trying to pin the blame on Bob Woodward? Woodward is the one who made the statement. It didn't come from the the White House, or Libby, or from the Bush Administration. The point is Libby said he got it from a reporter, Tim Russert. Woodward is saying he possibly told Libby about it. The charge is that Libby lied under oath about where he got the information and that he was the one who told reporters. If this is true and Woodward already knew and so did other reporters about Plame's identity and if Libby did get it from Woodward, a reporter, then he didn't lie. He may have said the wrong reporter (which is explained in the op-ed piece), but he didn't lie about getting it from a reporter. This is definitely getting more complicated. Notice I have not said anything about obstruction of justice. Not yet sure about that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Sciteach said:
Bob Woodward is trying to pin the blame on Bob Woodward? Woodward is the one who made the statement. It didn't come from the the White House, or Libby, or from the Bush Administration. The point is Libby said he got it from a reporter, Tim Russert. Woodward is saying he possibly told Libby about it. The charge is that Libby lied under oath about where he got the information and that he was the one who told reporters. If this is true and Woodward already knew and so did other reporters about Plame's identity and if Libby did get it from Woodward, a reporter, then he didn't lie. He may have said the wrong reporter (which is explained in the op-ed piece), but he didn't lie about getting it from a reporter. This is definitely getting more complicated. Notice I have not said anything about obstruction of justice. Not yet sure about that one.
Sorry, its late, im tired, and I have really bad ADD. Damn, and I thought I sounded smart for a minute:banghead: Time for bed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
Sciteach said:
The charge is that Libby lied under oath about where he got the information and that he was the one who told reporters
The charges include very specific statements that the prosecution is claiming were false, some of which have nothing to do with the Tim Russert conversation. Maybe you could read the indictment, or at least you could read a few posts up where I quoted only the brief specific portion that is relevant to this?

The problem with all this is the documentation indicating that Libby knew about Plame before these conversations, from internal sources (who have apparently testified to this effect). Libby's defense is centered around the idea that he forgot that he knew, and it was reporters who reminded him. The statement that he a) heard it from Russert, and b) had not known about Plame's status during the Russert conversation, is not made any more truthful if he actually heard it from Woodward a month earlier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
So much, so much.

(Russert conversation): He could use this to say "I did speak to a reporter like I said, just got the wrong reporter." Woodward statement would back this up. The account sound the same. Same conversation, different person.

(Cooper conversation): The Woodward conversation point to the fact that reporters were telling the administration. Did he tell Cooper that, not according to the indictment. So it doesn't get him completely off the hook here.

What this admission does is give credibility to Libby in that it shows that he may not have been lying when he said he heard it from reporters. It may make it a little harder for the jury to convict.

I guess what Libby should of done is what Clinton did.
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
:whistle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,721 Posts
Fbber McLibby shoud have taken a page from W's book, where you simply refuse to testify under oath and only answer questions while holding hands with Cheney.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
jimbob said:
Fbber McLibby shoud have taken a page from W's book, where you simply refuse to testify under oath and only answer questions while holding hands with Cheney.
I recall that he was called to testify, but not under oath. Who goes around saying, "Can I do this under oath?" By the way, are you saying that Bush is smarter than Clinton, because he knows how to not get in testimony trouble?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
jimbob said:
just a better liar. I believe you "recall" incorrectly, BTW.
I don't know about that. Finding a way to say "I don't know" 267 times is a pretty good job of being a liar.

I may be incorrect, but not until you source it.
 

·
My pornstar name came up "Jay the Snork."
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
"I don't remember" as the presidential answer to uncomfortable questions was invented by Reagan, in case you don't, or aren't old enough to remember.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Sciteach said:
So much, so much.

(Russert conversation): He could use this to say "I did speak to a reporter like I said, just got the wrong reporter." Woodward statement would back this up. The account sound the same. Same conversation, different person.

(Cooper conversation): The Woodward conversation point to the fact that reporters were telling the administration. Did he tell Cooper that, not according to the indictment. So it doesn't get him completely off the hook here.

What this admission does is give credibility to Libby in that it shows that he may not have been lying when he said he heard it from reporters. It may make it a little harder for the jury to convict.

I guess what Libby should of done is what Clinton did.


:whistle:
Your repeated references to Clinton is called a 'Straw Man' argument. It is fallacious. Clinton is irrelevent in this discussion.

The other point being that since it is not possible to prove a negative (as in I forgot) and is not possible to prove ignorance, the court always finds guilt. You know "Possession of stolen property" as in possession is 9-10ths of the law. A defense against material evidence is NOT "Because I said so".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Sciteach said:
I don't know about that. Finding a way to say "I don't know" 267 times is a pretty good job of being a liar.

I may be incorrect, but not until you source it.
February 20, 1986: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: "I don’t remember, period." "I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own.... The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’"

This cop out is nothing new.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top