JunkYardBlog reminds us about those forged “yellowcake” documents, citing this story—itself over a year old—which names an Italian businessman in the employ of French intelligence as the source of the documents Joseph Wilson claimed (to WaPo’s Walter Pincus) to have known were fake eight months before the US government even received them.
Up until now, I’ve simply assumed Wilson was lying when he made such an assertion, he being the type given to furious self-aggrandizement. But if George Galloway, Benon Sevan, Jean-Bernard Merimee and the UN Oil for Food scandal has taught us anything, it’s that anything is possible. Consequently, Bryan Preston floats the idea that perhaps Wilson had a French connection of his own—an possibility that seems to me to be quite farfetched on its face, but one that nevertheless demands a bit more scrutiny, particularly in light of all the forces that seem to be behind Wilson’s Niger trip and his subsequent disinformation campaign in the press.
I’ve heard several political pundits—most recently, Michael Ledeen—suggest that the Libby indictments will spur the Democrats to demand an investigation into pre-war intelligence.
Well and good. But I’d say an investigation into the lead-up for such a demand—beginning with Plame, Wilson, and the CIA, and proceeding forward to those several useful idiots in the press who propagated Wilson’s story—is worth exploring, as well.
Meanwhile, Andrew McCarthy notes something interesting about the Libby indictments:
I regard Count Five as a confusing count. (The same confusion arises elsewhere in the indictment, but it crystallizes, for me at any rate, in Count Five.)
Throughout the grand jury testimony excerpted in Count Five, the powerful impression one is left with is that Libby intentionally misled the grand jury about the state of his knowledge regarding Plame’s employment by the CIA –- i.e., what he knew and when he knew it. It’s alleged Libby explained that he told the reporters he had gotten his information about Plame from other reporters. More importantly, Libby testified that this was not because he was misremembering how he learned the information, and not because he was trying to avoid discussing what he knew from government sources. Rather, Libby flatly asserted that he said this to reporters because “it was a fact†that his source was a reporter (assertedly, Tim Russert).
So you’d figure the government’s theory of perjury in Count Five must be that Scooter was misleading the grand jury about the state of his information (i.e., that the prosecution is saying his real sources were the numerous government officials with whom Libby had spoken about Plame long before he spoke with Russert).
Yet, that’s not what Count Five alleges. When it finally gets to explaining the perrjury [sic] charge, it contends (in paragraph 3 on page 22) that Libby’s statements are perjurious only in that they falsely report the substance of Libby’s single conversation with one particular reporter, namely Matt Cooper. The count does not allege that Libby was tyring to mislead the grand jury about his general state of information.
I find that odd. It seems to me that this reduces Count Five to the old “he said / she saidâ€Â: i.e., whose story do you believe – Cooper’s or Libby’s? It seems to cancel out the whole point that Count Five seemed to be building to: namely, that Libby was not being straight with the grand jury about what he knew and when, wholly apart from whatever he reported about his conversation with Cooper.
As I said, this is something of a recurrent theme. There are times—not all the time, but sometimes—when the indictment makes the case appear to be much more about who is relating conversations more accurately – Cooper and Russert, or Libby – than it is about a general scheme by Libby to obstruct justice. That sure places a lot of the government’s chips on the credibility of the reporters’ recollection of a few key conversations. I would have thought the crucial thing would be whether Libby was generally honest with the investigation about his knowledge of Plame’s classified status.
If I were defense counsel, I’d be very curious to read the rest of Libby’s grand jury testimony and interview notes (beyond the snippets set forth in the indictment). I’d want to find out what exactly he said about whether he knew Plame’s status was classified, and if there are statements that suggest he was more equivocal about whether his sources were reporters rather than government officials.
I’m not suggesting the government’s case looks weak to me. It doesn’t. BUT, if there is stuff in Libby’s other statements for the defense to work with, and the case really does get down to the whether Libby or Russert/Cooper/Miller are more accurately remembering a few isolated conversations, then this may be a closer case than it seems on first blush.
[My emphases]
There’s a series to be had in ‘Joseph Wilson, P.I.”
The plot is the same. Joe Wilson goes somewhere, asks a couple of questions, and makes a pronouncement. No investigation. No analysis. Nothing other than Joe taking a person’s word on the matter.
.
In Cooper’s Time article today: Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”
Maybe its just me, but this seems to contradict what is stated in the indictment.
Yeah, I made that point in my post back on Friday, fer Chrissakes. I wish Andrew would give me credit when he rips off my stuff.
All kidding aside, though, you got this right, Jeff:
Not just worth exploring – this is the story. The press would be all over the CIA’s duplicity in this whole affair if it were a Democrat in the WH, you can betcher ass.
When something gets as convoluted as this with so many contradictions, my antenna go up and I begin to suspect a vast conspiracy … and it isn’t the Right Wing version.
It’s all a bonfire of the vanities. The problem is that “special” prosecutors get <a href=”http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carte blanche” target=”_blank”>real carte blanche.</a> If you’re a “special” prosecutor with carte blanche and you come back with NOTHING, then you are, perhaps by definition, a dickless fucktard.
My God, the SP that was sicced on Henry Cisneros is still racking up hours. Have you ever heard of an SP coming back and saying “nope, move along, nothing to see here…”
I haven’t.
:peter
Peggy Noonan is onto something. I didn’t think so until today. There are entrenched bureaucracies within the agencies charged with carrying out foreign policy (State, CIA, etc.) that are invested in the status quo of international relations (to put the most generous light on their motives). They find allies in the MSM, which has its own reasons for supporting them.
Here’s an article from WaPo yesterday (“Bad Blood Exists Between White House, CIA”). Of course, that bad blood is the result of the administration’s attempts to politicize intelligence. And the graphic accompanying the story contains a blatant falsehood (if the MSM held themselves to the same standards that they hold Bush this would be called a lie):
Thanks to this arrangement, we have the (ostensible) leader of a foreign country openly advocating the destruction of the United States, while acquiring the means to kills us by the millions, and we are utterly powerless to do anything about it.
Discussed at volokh.com:
http://volokh.com/posts/1130524175.shtml#32054 and many following comments.
There appears to be a great deal of confusion on this question, as Fitzgerald said in his press conference and press release that Libby lied wrt when and where he learned of Plame. This is disingenous and misleading insofar as Libby told the FBI in his first interview (Par 26) that he learned from Cheney but did not remember he knew it when talking to reporters.
When interviewed by the FBI and again in front of the grand jury, Libby explained that he had first heard of Plame through gov’t sources. Quotes in the indictment.
But,
He told reporters that he heard it from them. He told the FBI and the GJ that he was surprised when reporters told him that Plame was involved because he had forgotten that he had initially learned from gov’t sources. Fitzgerald can easily show that he should not have been surprised, as he had been working on the issue for over a month at the time of the conversations. Fitzgerald’s indictment spends a lot of time proving that Libby knew something that he disclosed he knew whenever he was questioned.
That seems like a slam-dunk, except that, as he did not lie about what he knew, where he learned it, or when he knew it, his lie about his state of mind seems, perhaps … immaterial?
With regard to the substantive mistatements about the content of his conversations with reporters, materiality is not the issue.
However,
(insert mandatory “I have never defended a perjury charge”)
Isn’t it a bit difficult to prove a he-said/(s)he said case when the accusers refuse to answer questions? For example, Cooper, Russert, and Miller famously refused to answer questions about who else, if anyone, told them anything about the case. That doesn’t affect their credibility for probable cause, but it certainly has an impact on Libby’s abilty to confront his accuser, and lends some (perhaps) reasonable doubt.
More thoughts:
While I have never defended a perjury case, I am a big fan of well-drafted complaints.
It says much for Fitzgerald’s skill that intelligent people could read the indictment and listen to his commments and get the impression that Libby blatantly lied about easily confirmable facts. Many commentators are taking that position.
Heck, I like to write my complaints as close to the line as possible. It is, after all, the first impression that anyone will get of your case.
The complaint charges Libby not with perjury or false statements for saying to the FBI/GJ that he learned of Plame from Russert, but for saying to the FBI/GJ that, when he spoke to Russert, he did not remember that “at the time of his conversation with Russert” he already knew of Plame.
I think I may have answered my own question a bit here, though. Fitzgerald can easily prove that Libby should have, and probably did, remember about Plame at the time he spoke to Russert. It makes it more plausible that Libby would misrepresent other, more important portions of the conversation if he would misrepresent such a minor point.
IIRC, there may be a Sixth Amendment/Fed Rules of Evidence issue with Fitzgerald attempting to introduce testimony by a party who will testify to only part of the relevant facts. Here, where Cooper would say “he said nothing to me about other reporters talking about Plame” but then presumably refuse to answer the logical defense question “did you discuss this with other reporters prior to talking to Libby?”, Libby’s confrontation right may be impacted. Any FRE afficiandos?
Of course, then Cooper would face contempt (again?).
Remember the meme (seems that it was only last week…) that Keller, Dowd, et. al. were helping Libby by dinging Ms. “Miss Run Amok” Miller’s credibility?
Boiled down to elements in contention, Fitzgerald must show that (1) Miller is right and Libby is lying (her notes are only somewhat helpful here, as her own editors say they are not up to snuff and she makes up conversations and allegations out of whole cloth (Abramson(sp?) and Calame); (2) Cooper is right and Libby is lying (We haven’t seen Cooper’s notes, but we know that he would go to jail rather than answer questions about people other than Rove or Libby); (3) Russert is right and Libby is lying (Remember, Russert says he only testified to what he told Libby). If Fitzgerald cannot prove at least two of those three, the obstruction of justice count probably falls. The argument is about a few words in a conversation both parties admit two years before the reporters were questioned under oath, and, for all that Fitzgerald argues that there is a common motive, the individual lies are different for each reporter, so proving one doesn’t prove the next.
Finally, (4) Libby lied about the emotions he felt while talking to the reporters, because, at the time he talked to the reporters, he remembered something he says now he had forgotten then.
For all of Fitzgerald’s advantages as a prosecutor, I don’t see the normal 90% success rate being helped here.
Indeed, Walter, the amusement value of having the NYT discredit his own witness doesn’t seem to showing on Fitzgerald’s face.
Walter, I always a minimalist in drafting my complaints (of course, I was only a humble Assistant State’s Attorney) – what did they do wrong, and which provision of the ILCS that violated. Period. I still don’t understand adding anything else. It helps nothing.
I think the transcripts of the GJ will make for most excellent reading…
Joe Wilson’s second wife, Jacqueline, was a French diplomat.
I’m not in the best of shape this p.m. [a headache (no, not a wild night)]. IIRC Wilson never left the hotel during his week abroad, merely made a few phone calls, from the hotel.
And this ….
If taken at face/true (?), one could surmise Joe already had a premeditated bitch on early.
Regards:
One of the more elegant reasons put forth over the years, for our initial involvement in Vietnam? Was the price of an ‘escort’. Those there charged with reporting the situation, not wanting to leave.
Nice little pity party for Joe, going on over at DU (always good for a laugh) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×1885650
Isn’t it amazing this guy has to engage in a damage control campaign to refute Fitzgeralds finding of no outing? Is there not one close comrade that can just politley tell him he should just keep his big mouth shut for once?
Hmmmm.
Ok let me get this straight.
You can get charged with federal counts of perjury if you lie to a reporter?
I can’t see how that’s not what’s going on here, Ed.
For what it’s worth, the WSJ has a weekend editorial that lays it out fairly cleanly:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007476
Walter
I look at all sides of an issue and come to conclusions by which scenario makes sense, there is usually only one that is truly feasible.
This story has completely stymied that approach. No scenario I can come up with here makes a lick of fucking sense.
On 60 Minutes’ “Joe Wilson, the Saga Continues” tonight, they showed footage with no sound of Bush giving his famous speech on Iraq, wherein he “lied.” They just used Bradley’s paraphrasing. I guess if they played the true 16 words, it would wreck the whole point of the segment.
Well, they *ARE* the Fourth Branch of government.
Hmmm.
Ok now I’m even more confused.