Clarice recollects what everyone’s forgotten–or never understood–about the Scooter Libby conviction:
But Libby was acquitted of the only charge before the jury that he leaked her identity to reporters and lied about it. In fact, the evidence at trial showed Libby did not disclose Plame’s identity to reporters Robert Novak (Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow did that), or Bob Woodward (Armitage, again), Walter Pincus (White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer did) or Matt Cooper (Karl Rove did that one). In fact, on the only such charge submitted to the jury, the evidence established that Libby went out of his way to tell Cooper –when Cooper volunteered that he’d heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA — he wasn’t sure if that information was even true and the jury acquitted Libby on that count.
So Libby was not convicted of leaking, or of lying about what he told reporters. In fact, the Judge found there was “no evidence whatsoever” that Libby ever understood that Plame’s status was classified. So it’s hard to imagine what reason he would have had for lying about these conversations even if he had disclosed something about her.
On what basis, then, was Libby convicted? Libby was convicted for his recollection of what a reporter told him — a part of a phone call with reporter, Tim Russert, in which the prosecution maintained Plame was never mentioned.
The Prosecution first claimed that Libby lied about his Russert conversation to conceal his real source — the Vice President — for the information about Plame. This was what the Prosecutor, in his famous phrase, called “the cloud over the Vice President.” But the uncontested evidence at trial — evidence that even the Prosecution admitted to be true — demolished this claim. Libby had told the investigators about his conversation with the Vice President from the very first time that he testified. In addition, uncontested evidence at trial showed that just after he spoke to Russert, Libby had a separate conversation in which he learned that the media was talking about Plame’s CIA employment. So Libby had no need to make up anything about Russert. The only cloud over the vice-president’s office was the one the prosecutor put there to cover for the absence of any rational case against Libby or Cheney.
Of course, it’s going to be fun to see folks who misconstrued or misrepresented all of this howling about Fitzpatrick’s leveraging of testimony with regard to Blagogate, especially if it gets close to The One. (h/t Stephen Ferrell)
Paging Colin Powell, please pick up the half-white courtesy phone. Paging Colin Powell…
Fitz won’t leverage anything to get close to Obama. Silly boy.
Thanks, Dan.
Thanks for sorting all that shit out, clarice. I know I couldn’t be bothered to.
Thanks again–Keep your fingers crossed.
Well, the thing I took away from the Scooter Libby incident is: Don’t talk to cops at any level or time without a lawyer and personal video/audio.
This is going to end up doing wonderful things for community trust in cops.
Same here, SDN. Even if I’m absolutely sure they aren’t looking to get me for something, I will keep my mouth shut.
Scooter Libby? Why, he’s History’s Greatest Monster!â„¢
The thing to remember is when asked about a particular phone call on a certain date, preface everything with ‘To the best of my recollection’.
After hundreds of phone calls, dozens of meetings, etc., it isn’t unusual for the memory of even an innocent person to go a bit fuzzy on what was said to whom on what date.
Oh – and do not keep a personal diary. Could be embarassing if that got subpoeaned – proving that you are a wild and crazy person; or totally boring.
Oh, and let’s not forget the best part, where at least one of the jurors was being interviewed after the trial, and stated that one reason they voted to convict Libby was not that the government had proved its’ case, but that he was the best available sub for Bush and Rove. Which should have caused an instant mistrial and change of venue, but hey, it’s only the legal system’s integrity involved here. Nothing important.
1) This was a horrific trial, for reasons already stated. Ask investigators for a list of people whose recollections may not be questioned, like Russert, so you can make sure to comport your testimony with theirs.
2) Or, better yet, just don’t talk to an investigator, and tell them why. If you misremember something, you can be convicted. Since your memory is fallible, you must say nothing because you don’t want to go to jail. The fifth amendment now covers ALL testimony, since mistaken testimony is now a crime. I think this one is only going to get worse.
Police and prosecutors want testimony, work to get those laws repealed.
[…] posting this to follow up on what Clarice wrote about why Bush ought to pardon Libby. Daniel Henninger in the WSJ: I think there is a good legal […]