Redstate

For many reasons today, I miss the comment rating system.

Right now, it's because this story deserves a 5!

Grist for more Democrat hyperventilation about a story which no one will care about.

First - I thought Fitzgerald was going to need oxygen and elephant tranquilizer at the press conference today.

Second - He 'protests too much' about politics not being part of this - as he spent so much of the conference hammering about the consequences of a law being broken - which he didn't prosecute anyone for.

Third - If it is so important to our national destiny that 'national security' legal violations be prosecuted, I await the trial of Sandy Burglar.

Fourth - Libby will become the Secord of this 'scandal'.  He will take the hit, and everyone else will move on.

Fifth - I await the President's press conference announcing the next SCOTUS nominee.

. . . is why, if there was no underlying crime, Libby didn't simply testify fully and truthfully.  It's pretty clear that the Fitzgerald operation is very tight and, not being an independent counsel, he doesn't issue a report.  If there was no crime, Libby could have testified and, even if the testimony would be politically damaging, it would likely never have come out.

Reading the indictment it's clear that, if the charges are accurate, Libby was very concerned that the grand jury believe that the release of Plame / Wilson connection did not originate within the administration.  

It seems to me that his behavior indicates that Libby must have believed that completely truthful testimony (again, taking the information in indictment as accurate) would have exposed himself or someone else to legal jeopardy.  Fitzgerald made some remarks at the press conference which indicated that he has given a lot of thought to the Espionage act which he seems disinclined to use on principal.  Perhaps that's what Libby was worried about.  But clearly he was worried about something, otherwise full and truthful testimony would seem to be a no-brainer.

If Scooter Libby is indeed guilty of the charges leveled at him in the indictment - and I realize that the matter has not been proved - then I won't be on the bandwagon that seeks to demonize Fitzgerald for seeking those charges in the absence of an underlying crime. And I further think that it's shameful for anyone who was on the record in 1998 calling for the removal of Bill Clinton on exactly the same grounds to object to this particular line of prosecution. While I personally find it hilarious that Democrats are concerned about perjury and obstruction of justice now, let's let them be the ones who sell out their consistency.

Yea, and as usual, the republicans will let democrats beat them over their heads because of their virtue. This is political hardball man. Virtues will get you killed. If you don't believe me, go ask Scooter Libby who was doing what he was told by the President... to go and cooperate with the investigation. He should of took the fifth and the prosecutor would not of had anything.

I await the trial of Sandy Burglar.

His trial was in April.  He pled out to a misdeamenor.

Just wondering, but was Clinton actually indicted on perjury charges?  I know there was a bunch of stuff about perjury in the bill of impeachment, but that's a whole different process.  

I opined that Fitz has a constituency, if not an agenda. He will have to work with the FBI and other spooks long after GWB leaves office. Whether "covert" or not, people in the "law enforcement" community cherish privacy.

If you don't believe me, go ask Scooter Libby who was doing what he was told by the President... to go and cooperate with the investigation.

Technically speaking, the charge is obstructing, rather than cooperating, with the investigation.  Certainly none of the President's public comments on the matter can in any way be construed as indicating that he was telling anyone involved to give untruthful testimony.

I'm sure someone will correct my idiocy if I'm wrong but I believe that, for a sitting President, an impeachment is an indictment - with the trial taking place in the Senate.

having his license to practice law in Arkansas suspended for five years...

Last time we had a public official commit perjury, that was his judicial punishment.  Whay a joke but given that precedent, I would expect no more and no less for Scooter.

Seriously though, I will have no beef with jail time for Scooter, but I will have a beef about the inconsistency here...jail time for Scooter's perjury but free time for Clinton?  

Neil

Clinton made a deal at the end of his term...his law license in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years.  Boo-freakin-hoo...it was a cop out plea bargin because the prosecutor had no b*lls and the Clinton's took the White House furnitures with them to New York.  

I hope W bought a new bed when he moved in.

I think Neil is refering something that was unrelated to the high crimes and misdemeanor charges from the 1999 Impeachment.

Fitzgerald cites Libby's grand jury testimony and underlines the portions he considers perjury.

Read them in full. I find several of the counts based on these quotes to be totally absurd.

It's more than ambiguous as to whether Libby is lying or admitting to having told lies to reporters--ironically to avoid confirming possibly classified information! Is lying to a reporter perjury?

In other counts, Libby claims not "to be sure" about the information he heard or received in documents, and to be therefore reluctant to pass that info on. Fitzgerald  charges him for perjury on the assumption that he DID know that information to be correct. How the hell does Fitzgerald think he's going to prove that?

I'd love to be Libby's defense attorney.

one thing with these charges, is that they may not look so strong once a defense attorney gets a hold of them, and especially when he gets to cross examine the witnesses.

Several of the reporters involved negotiated as to what they would testify to in the GJ room, they won't get that kind of negotiation from a defense attorney.

But this is why these types of charges aren't always easy to prove, and I think the fact that there isn't an underlying charge, and the defense is going to hammer that one home, may lead to a jury nullification to some degree.

Is this lack of gotcha going to bring back the debate on the war?  I mean with the evening headline being "Karl Rove not Indicted" that has got to hurt those who had placed this investigation as one that would lead to a Bush impeachment.  Will they move back to a previous position and try from there?  Or just hope for something else to get the news cycle?  They want something so bad and when one thing does not pan out, quickly on to the next.  But in the background there are many dogged Bush haters who truly believe there was a conspiracy on intel at the White House that led us to war.  How will they get there from here?  Can we predict?  Not in the same vein as the numerous other threads on this site and elsewhere, the partisan hacking is fun but I'm really interested if anyone here has a sentient prediction.  They must move on to something soon, can we head them off?

As stated earlier this is Hardball Politics and the Republican Party needs to wake up and fight fire with fire. The Democrats will continue with their "culture of corruption" rants, all the while knowing that their friends in the Press will not expose their own hyprocrosy.

The Republican Party and conservatives do not want to stoop to their (Dems) low tatics, but unless we fight back it will continue as the Dems rewrite their own history.

Very well written Leon. I'd only add a comment or two about awaiting another shoe to drop. It seems  the prosecutor's comments were either extremely guarded or very general - not much specific to indicate what other charges or individuals remain at risk of indictment.

To that extent, I am concerned that the prosecutor may have gone on a bit too long, but if we do NOT hear from him again before trial, he has certainly given a great airing to the press.

Finally, the press seems skewered - many are certain to be called as witnesses and in some cases subject to evisceration at trial. I strongly suspect a negotiated plea, but would love to see the cross examination, as well as a public questioning of CIA contracting procedures and nepotism policies. Alas, it won't happen.

As I understand the indictment, Fitz is alleging that Libby was specifically told by the Vice President and other government officials about Plame's general status (wife of Wilson, sent him to Niger, works at CIA) BEFORE he talked to Reporters, and furthermore those reporters were told by HIM not the other way around the general status of Valerie Plame.

To my way of thinking, Fitz has to prove this but has a strong reed (testimony by the Vice President and others that Libby was told, and when) and a weak one (testimony by reporters that Libby told them not the other way round).

If a Defense Attorney can raise reasonable doubt about Mr. Mandy Grunewald (Cooper); Tim Russert (who's been spectacularly evasive) and Judy Miller regarding this issue, he has a strong case for reasonable doubt.

The upside is that the trial will expose an ugly underside to the Press; the degree by which leaks from various sources (including likely Wilson and Plame themselves) form their work, and the degree in which they are embedded in the partisan activities of the Democrats.

Fitz was asked specifically and refused to answer WHO it was that originally leaked Plame's status to Novak. It may be that Plame was outed by Wilson to Kristof and Bill Keller as part of the negotiating process for the op-ed that started it. Believe it that Keller, Kristof, Miller, Novak, and the others will be called and WILL have to testify; otherwise Libby walks.

To me a weak point here for Fitz is the original leaker. If Keller testifies that Wilson told him his wife works at the CIA; game over.

the Republican response to Libby's indictment will be to join in the chorus against him and not look at the actual indictments with the same analytical eye that would have been given to, say, an indictment of Karl Rove.

It's terribly convenient, in a political sense, to throw him to the wolves here. It's unfortunate, I think, but the first person who'd understand this--and probably approve of it--is Libby himself.

I'm not terribly impressed with Fitzgerald's case here, and as understandable as it is to not go to bat for him now, I think Libby deserves ot expect his pardon in 09.

I've said before that we could tell whose winning the political spin on the indictment by which side complained the most about Fitzgerald.  Judging by what I'm reading here, seems that the Dems have won.

If you have the stomach for it, visit Kos or the Daily Underground tonight. Amidst the gnashing of teeth and tearing of robes, the only optimists are those are those who have deluded themselves that Fitzgerald is just getting started instead of winding down.

There are some serious and substantial questions to be asked about the quality of Fitzgerald's work here--not the same thing at all as demonizing Fitzgerald himself. If the only prism one sees this through is that of partisan politics, then Republicans (even those raising questions) have no reason to be anything but thrilled.

The media has already indicted, tried and found Karl Rove guilty. The facts are a mere technicality. The national conversation on the Sunday Shows will proceed as if Rove has already been exposed as a Machiavellian master mind.

In the next months there will be a relentless chanting of "culture of corruption" from the Dems and their allies. You will see the media practicing its myth craft like never before. The CIA leak story will dwarf all others even the next SCOTUS pick. We need to prepare for the coming storm.  

There's plenty of analysis, a lot of second guessing, but precious little "complaining" about the prosecutor.

If anything, it's hard to imagine a starker contrast to the handling of most Independent Counsel investigations, and political treatment of them - from Walsh through Starr.

I sense great remaining hesitation on both sides - from the right wondering how far the damage will extend and if others will be indicted, and from the left the opposite - this is bad, but isn't there more to it?

Finally, try to find anything of any emotion which the POTUS has said about this - his reticence has been unprecedented. Clinton and Reagan, even at their most sympathetic blabbed a little bit, and the Clinton WH went to the top of the charts against Starr. Nothing close to that here.

Now, this paragraph flat out stinks. Fitzgerald has spent two years investigating this under the IIPA. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knows whether Wilson was a "covert agent" as defined by the statute. And, given that the entirety of his statement and the indictment alleged numerous times that Libby knowlingly, intentionally outed her, the only rational conclusion is that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent. If she were, Libby would have been charged with an IIPA violation as well. Fitzgerald knows good and well that she wasn't, and when he was asked about it, he was very careful to point that he wasn't claiming definitively that she was covert - but just as deliberately left open the question that she just might be.

Well, no. Consider Josh Marshall's find in the indictments itself:

Overlooked in the current discussion.

Go to page 5 of the indictment. Top of the page, item #9.

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

This is a crucial piece of information. The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the spies, the 'operatives', come from.

Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.

Late Update: To be clear, there are of course support staff of various sorts in the DO. Not everyone is a field operative or a 'spy', certainly not in the colloquial sense of the term. But this is the essential difference between these two branches of the agency. These two guy had every reason to know what they were doing.

Regardless of the above, I don't think a lack of indictment on these charges today means there won't be later in the investigation.

interesting analysis here. not sure i buy all of it.

but this part sticks out to me:

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (Official A) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

what did "official a" tell novak? will libby tell fitzgerald?

that Leon has identified a critical flaw in this whole mess. Fitzgerald seemingly does not know, or at least will not say, whether the facts support or dispute a violation of the IIPA. After two years he still can't tell us if the underlying law was violated, but he can indict someone for violations of laws involving the investigation?

I preface this by saying that I know nothing about Fitzgerald aside from his press conference today. But I had the distinct impression that he is a man obsessed with the 'beauty of the law' and the process, and that he was pleased with himself for catching someone 'messing around' with it; I had the distinct impression that he really didn't care whether the IIPA was violated, he had someone anyway. He may be a wonderful person absolutely devoted to our system, but that was my impression.

In my untrained experience a good interrogator (prosecutor) can always make it possible for someone to contradict themselves if the are given enough opportunities.

It's pretty late in the investigation to be talking about later in the investigation.

The indictment of Libby says what it says, and is no place to start building indictments of others which haven't occurred.

If Fitzgerald wants to be the second coming of Ronnie Earle and shop charges with a second grand jury that he couldn't with the first, then let's him hear him say so.

Certainly and quite simply.  Confirm Luttig or Alito, whatever it takes.  Up to, and including, the execution of the constitutional option.  This approach resolves two issues at the same time, and as an added bonus, it obviously serves to further unify conservatives.

A "judicially conservative" Supreme Court, one that believes in the rule of law and the limited role of judges, will effectively stop the advance of the liberal political agenda by limiting the judicial institutionalization of liberalism.

The left's whole premise regarding the circumstances that led to the Iraq War, their contention that "Bush Lied" and their desire to impeach President Bush requires that the court is in agreement with the left's position.  Evidence does not favor the liberal argument, and said argument would be rejected by that same "judicially conservative" court.

May the battle begin!

as well as a public questioning of CIA contracting procedures and nepotism policies.

Just curious about this one. You want THIS administration to question anyone about contracting procedures and nepotism?

I think I'll just settle with the fact that this "investigation" is over and not what some people wanted it to be.

But I disagree with one point.

"And, given that the entirety of his statement and the indictment alleged numerous times that Libby knowlingly, intentionally outed her, the only rational conclusion is that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent. If she were, Libby would have been charged with an IIPA violation as well."

Is that really what the indictment says?

"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified."

So clearly Fitzgerald thinks she was a covert agent, unless you think that "classified status" is not the same as "covert."  That could be an arguable point.

Also, it could be that Fitzgerald is still trying to figure out where Libby got the information, and if someone else would fall under IIPA, or if Libby would.  If I understand the situation correctly, there is another Official from whom Libby learned information.  Presumably, Libby's lies are to cover up this fact (since he was trying all along to say he got the information from one reporter or another).

The problem for Libby is this: how to get out from the perjury charge.  Presumably, he told the truth in describing how he lied to the reporters.  He avoids having to say WHY he lied to the reporters.  This would, oddly, keep him safe from perjury, if I understand the case law correctly.  In Bronston, the Supreme Court held that statements that are literally truthful and nonresponsive cannot by themselves form the basis for perjury conviction.

So, assume Libby's statements describing his lies are true, even if his original statements to the reporters are false.  To get out of the perjury charge, he's going to have to explain why he lied to the reporters about the source of his information (in other words, provide a reasonable basis for the lies).  One possible answer is: "I knew she was covert because another administration official told me."  So he gets out of perjury but gets an IIPA violation.

(sorry, that made more sense before i wrote it.  It's too late).

re: Paula Jones vs William J. Clinton, Sexual Harassment Suit - Clinton lied to Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright and obstructed justice.  The case was dismissed, but Clinton perjured himself in the deposition process and was held in contempt.  Jones filed an appeal contesting the dismissal.  Clinton settled with Jones for $800K rather than letting the appeal proceed.

This was, contrary to dem talking points, totally separate from Independent Counsel Kenneth Star's "Whitewater" investigation.

Plame's status at the CIA was 'not' covert or NOC.  However, one could make the case that it was classified.  Fitzgerald tried to blur that distiction with his comments during the press conference, but had to back off when he was asked point blank to state for the record that the CIA had confirmed her covert status.

Considering the nature of the evidence against Libby as presented by Fitzgerald in the indictment, an indictment under IIPA would be difficult, if not nearly an impossibe task, given the extremely high threshold of proof and malicious intent required by IIPA.  A conviction under IIPA is a non-starter in this case.  Fitzgerald's chances would have been a little better under 793, but he obviously felt he had no case there either.  The threshold required by 793 is also quite high.   Hence, the obstruction and perjury charges.

While we all really speculate about Fitzgerald, his "baseball" analogy speaks to the core here in my humble opinion. The pitcher beans the batter: did he mean to? a little but the ball slipped? not at all, it was a wild pitch? To get to the pitcher's motives requires being a Sherlockian sleuth. What I and otehrs took the analogy to mean is that Libby's lies prevented that line of inquiry from being developed and expanded. So by indicting Libby who faces 30 years of prison time, Fitzgerald will now put the screws on and Libby will take a long sentence in jail (at age 55) or cooperate. What does that mean? I am one who thinks this is not going away ... at all. "A" is still under investigation, etc etc. On the other hand, if the pitcher speaks about exactly what he did or did not intend when the batter was beaned, the case is over (for the pitcher).

Now here is what Fitzgerald actually said about Plame's status:

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.

What is not clear about "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified"?

You know, there are a lot of things that go on in Washington that are "not widely known," but nonetheless known by all sorts of people anyhow. For goodness' sake, before this investigation, the name of I. Lewis Libby was "not widely known" to anyone outside of the innermost circle of the beltway. And yet, it wasn't a protected national secret what Libby did for a living.

"For goodness sake?" Please. I hope this is just an incredibly disingenuous statement.

Similarly, Plame's identity may not have been "widely known," in the sense that she went around bragging about it to everyone, but it doesn't necessarily follow that she was James-Bond-in-a-dress. Nowhere in this press conference does Fitzgerald make any mention of the baldfaced assertion by Andrea Mitchell that her identity was in fact a generally well-known thing among the DC press corps, she was most decidely not a covert agent, under the terms of the statute.

Andrea Mitchell? Can you tell me how you know when to mistrust the MSM and when to lend credence to any "baldfaced" assertion they may make?

This is whistling past the graveyard, Leon.

James-Bond-in-a-dress? Is that what we think covert operations are about?

I submit that this whole issue is about bringing impeachment proceedings against G.W. Bush because he deliberately lied to the American people about why we went to war with Iraq.  Louis Libby, Valerie Plame, and Patrick Fitzgerald are simply pawns in the whole process.  If the Democrats can pull that off, or if they can just get a lot of talk going with their sycophants in the media, and that will be easy to do, they can go into the next election cycle saying the Republicans took America to war and killed XXXX number of our military in an unjust and illegal war effort.

Make no mistake about the fact that the democrats and their allies are anti-war.  They ran an anti-war John Kerry for president last time and that is where the Democratic Party is today.  Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry represent the views of the National Democratic Party today.  It is a view unsupported by the majority of voters so they are going after the integrity of the Republicans by saying they are corrupt.

So any of you who think this issue is going to go to the back burner due to the battle over the Supreme Court had better think again.  Indeed, this is just the opening salvo of shots in the all out political war that has yet to come, but isn't far off.  

Now, this paragraph flat out stinks. Fitzgerald has spent two years investigating this under the IIPA. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knows whether Wilson was a "covert agent" as defined by the statute. And, given that the entirety of his statement and the indictment alleged numerous times that Libby knowlingly, intentionally outed her, the only rational conclusion is that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent. If she were, Libby would have been charged with an IIPA violation as well. Fitzgerald knows good and well that she wasn't, and when he was asked about it, he was very careful to point that he wasn't claiming definitively that she was covert - but just as deliberately left open the question that she just might be.

The problem I have with your argument is that if Fitzgerald was at all minimally competent, the first thing he would have done two years ago is determine whether or not Plame was covered by the statute. If she was unambigiously not covered by IIPA, or the Espionage Act, or some other substansive law, then you'd think he would have closed down his investigation two months after it started, giving a "no harm, no foul" press conference.

The CIA thought there was enough of a chance of violation of law to refer the matter to Justice; Justice thought there was enough of a chance of violation to appoint Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald thought there was enough of a chance of violation to spend two years on the case. It may certainly be true that there wasn't a violation of IIPA, but if so, I don't think you are justified in saying that it was cut-and-dried from the get-go.

-dms

But the headline in the Christian Science Monitor sums up my thoughts: "Why an effort to thwart investigation?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_usa102905b.htm

Innocent answer: because it was an accidental and innocent disclosure by the government.

Not-so-innocent answer: because it was an intentional disclosure, by Mr. Libby and another, to discredit a political opponent and it included an illegal act.

I'm not sure yet which of those is the truth, but the first one seems awfully unlikely to me, given the difficulties with Libby's timeline, tending to show that there was no accidental and innocent disclosure.

"CIA contracting procedures and nepotism policies".

David Gelertner - LA Times OP/ED

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter28oct28,0,320
4741.story

In the background for the indictment, it says the CIA report on Wilson's trip, sent to Libby, was marked "classified".  If the trip was classified, why was Wilson talking about it to every reporter that would listen?  Why is Wilson not under indictment?  If Wilson was not cleared for information, why was he sent on the trip?  If he was cleared, he had the same responsibility as anyone else not to divulge the information.

Something is amiss here.

Leon, don't you ever watch Law n' Order?  Fitz's actions can easily be interpreted as putting enormous pressure on Libby in order to nail Rove.  Worst case scenario - it would seem - is that everyone on the right thinks everything is over, lets their guard down, the nomination fight turns really ugly (which is precisely what many on the right seem to want) and then Fitz reveals even more indictments.  That could throw a number of monkey wrenches into even well laid plans on the right.

Fitz says his investigation is largely over, meaning that he believes he knows what went on and has a good idea who was involved.  The question is, can he prove his suspicions.  Libby, it seems, is key to proving this, and he's now facing thirty years on felony counts.  Rove is now identified as "Official A", and we're now waiting for the other shoe to drop.

As to Plame's status and other matters, I would suggest that Andy McCarthy's view on these is probably a must read for those on the right.  It's pretty clear that Fitz is being circumspect about this because that's his job.  The fact that her status was secret and she worked for operations should give you a pause - rather than trying to draw the analogy to Libby himself.

Anyways, time will tell.  My suggestion is that those on the right not let their guard down.  The fat lady hasn't been heard singing just yet.

your concern, or what I perceive as unwarranted pessimism, but truly look forward to the political battles that lie ahead.  I think you 'misunderestimate' the size and strength of the conservative movement in mainstream America and don't fully trust the voting public's ability to discern the truth.  I'm absolutely confident that you're overestimating the credibility and persuasive powers of the liberal dems and their allies in the MSM.  Let them cry corruption.  After all, it's all they've got.  Meanwhile, we'll counter their efforts to sidetrack our conservative movement, press forward and deliberately with our conservative agenda and offer a stark contrast between conservatives and liberals for the voters to consider in 2006.

I'll admit, we hit a 'bump in the road' with the Miers nomination, but that will quickly reverse itself with the nomination of a judicial conservative such as Luttig or Alito to the Supreme Court.  The true 'extremists' will be on stage for all of mainstream America to see during the upcoming confirmation battle.  The dems won't be able to hide their panic and rage, because they know their liberal agenda effectively dies once judicial conservatives hold a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court.  See my other post regarding this point in this same thread: http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/28/215314/00/29#29

I also welcome the chance for an open, public debate with the libs on the merits of the Iraq war.  The evidence is simply not on their side in this debate.  Iraq is not Vietnam.  They've allowed their party to be hijacked by the extremists from within, and have painted themselves in a corner with their radical, anti-war stance.  That is a position from which there is no viable political escape.  The lib's defeatist mantra and calls for surrender will not play well in the hearts and minds of what is fast becoming a sea of red blanketing mainstream America.  One thing is for sure, Americans hate to lose.

Let the battles begin!

Wilson did not file a written report himself upon his return from Niger, but the report was written by the same people in the CIA that sent him.  I suspect a predetermined conclusion had already been reached before he left on the trip.

what is your source?

upon his return from Niger, but did not file a written report himself.  That is documented in the Senate Intelligence Report, Page 43.

"U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes."

The 'predetermined conclusion' of said trip is wholly supposition on my part, and is based in part, on his lack of qualifications and expertise in WMD's and 'Who' within the CIA actually sent him, or caused him to be sent, to Niger in the first place.  Wilson also publicyly implied that Vice-President Cheney authorized his trip to Niger, and thanks to the Senate Intelligence Report, we know that is not true.

for taking the time to post the source.

I think as far as Wilson was concerned, his mind was predetermined.  However, didn't his findings support the claims by numerous intelligence agencies that Iraq approached Niger about purchasing yellow-cake?  

Knowing that the hullaballoo about the Plame outing is much ado about nothing, and assuming for a moment that the allegations of the indictment are exactly correct and that Libby did lie to the grand jury--the excerpted testimony in Count V seems hard to refute at this juncture, because he maintained his story even as the question suggested an "out"--I have to ask: Why? What possibly was the motive to lie about something so simple.

Libby is an extremely intelligent and savvy lawyer and government servant. He knows what happens to people who lie to a federal grand jury, excepting only Bill Clinton. And, he doesn't strike me as someone--unlike Bill Clinton--whose ego and arrogance overrides his judgment; he was described even in an MSM article I read today as a "deep thinker." So, why did he do it?

It couldn't have been a misunderstanding of the law--he's smart enough that he would have been completely up to speed on that by the time he testified, if not well before all of this started.

I haven't seen anyone really talk about this in detail. The MSM is frustrated that Rove didn't take a hit and wants to pretend he still might, even though Fitz's conference suggested to me that Rove likely wouldn't be indicted and, besides, they have abandoned critical and insightful analysis to the blogs.

Moreover, Fitz seemed to indicate that no crime was committed, at least that he could prove, so I would think its unlikely that he's going to parcel out indictments further.

So, assuming that no evidence will change the picture painted by the indictment, I'm left wondering just why he lied to the GJ or, in Fitz's words, threw sand in the umpire's eyes. I don't get it.

My guess is that he believed himself to be in danger of prosecution under the Espionage Act.  Fitzgerald indicated that use of this act was a judgement call and sounded particularly disinclined to use it except in the most clearcut of cases.  Libby would not have known about Fitzgerald's opinion of the Act when he began down the road of claiming that the information originated outside of White House.

If that's true, Fitsgerald's prosecutorial judgement may have helped the entire Administration dodge a rather large bullet.

but it still doeesn't--at least to me--explain the lying. If he was concerned about the Espionage Act, he could've just taken the Fifth. He could've resigned if a reticence to speak would've been a problem with Bush the Younger. But, it appears he lied to the GJ, even when the question hinted that his lying had been discovered. Again, he had to have known what lying would entail and that they would discover it.

I think it odd. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I don't think so.

was unable to refute the intelligence supplied by MI-6 to our intelligence community regarding the multiple attempts by Iraq to secure 'yellow-cake' in Africa.  Great Britain stands by that intelligence.  I hope Porter Goss is conducting an internal investigating into who is responsible for the rougue element within the CIA, and how that element was able to use a partisan hack like Joe Wilson in an attempt to undermine a sitting president and our war effort in Iraq.  It seems that avenue is beyond the scope of Fitzgerald's mandate.  Too bad.  I think he would be very 'productive' if he followed that particular avenue in his investigation.

From what I can gather, Wilson's mining contacts in Niger were cleared by the French before they were allowed to speak with him.  Additionally, Wilson was only allowed to speak with a limited number of current government officials in Niger.  No government officials from the previous regime were allowed to meet with Wilson.  (This I garnered from the Senate Intelligence Report and the CIA Report on Iraq WMD.)

We know Saddam had approximately 500 tons of uranium yellow-cake.  Clearly a violation of UN sanctions.  What else, besides the UN's Oil-for-Food-Fraud, were the French directly involved or trying to cover up?

Saddam kept meticulous records regarding his Oil-for-Food transactions.  Sen. Coleman, and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has a boat-load of them.  I'm curious to see how far the French and Russians went to thwart our pre-war efforts, and what role they played in hiding and transferring parts of Saddam's WMD programs and leading scientists out of Iraq during the fourteen month period we wasted appeasing our 'friends' at the UN?

is no good if he's trying to avoid prosecution under the Espionage Act.  To protect himself in that case, he would need to establish positively that he did not give classified information to an unauthorized person.

Taking the fifth in such a case might not help advance the investigators' case, but it would certainly alert them to the fact that there was a case to be made.

just plead guilty. This could get very messy. Now is the time to be uber loyal.

It certainly is true that taking the Fifth suggests that there MIGHT be a substantive case to be made. But, knowingly lying to the GJ doubtlessly MAKES a case in and of itself, plus it also suggests that there MIGHT be a substantive case, else why lie?

And, Libby surely knew that above all, prosecutors hate it when you lie. They'll work with a lot of things, but they truly detest lying, especially to the GJ.

Libby's too smart for all of that and, given his behind-the-scenes personality, doubtlessly not given to making bad decisions based on ego or arrogance. So, I'm still confused.

regarding Wilson's Niger contacts.  He was not able to contact any of the current members of the Niger administration; he did, in fact, contact former officials with whom he had a previous relationship, one of which (former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki) confirmed that he had been approached to:

meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq.  The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.  SICR, p. 43.

Mayaki, by his own admission, indeed met with the Iraqi delegation, confirming British sources of intelligence and suspicions, though, in fairness, Mayaki and subsequent Nigerian administration officials denied actually transferring yellowcake to Iraq at any time between 1999 and 2003.

You are correct.  I reversed the 'contact' - 'no contact' subjects.  mea culpa

Wilson's contacts in Niger were officials with whom he had a prior relationship.

Thanks again!

it would only make sense if you thought you would get away with it.  Did Libby think that?  It seems he almost did get away with it, since it took an extra year to dot the Is and cross the Ts to get the indictment.

Also, I think I read someplace that the actual perjury predated Fitzgerald's appointment (don't have the time to check the dates right now).  If true, Libby may have thought he wouldn't have so much trouble with a "friendly" investigation under Ashcroft.

According to the indictment, Libby testified before the GJ on 5 Mar 04 and 24 Mar 04.  Fitzgerald was appointed as Special Counsel on 30 Dec 03.  So you can put that "'friendly' investigation under Ashcroft" conspiracy theory to bed.

to get the facts mixed up in these investigations, something Mr Libby is learning in an exceedingly hard way.

if I may pick your brain for a moment, any knowledge regarding the covert terrorist interdiction operations that seem to be underway along the Syrian border region?

Additionally, are you aware of any storage facilities or wharehouses that have been marked for investigation by any of our special or covert operation forces in that same border region?

even if I did/was, "if I told you I'd have to kill you."

I'll keep my ears open though -- certainly an action that is long overdue IMHO.

Assad is making a lot of noise about US Special Forces operating in Syria.  I was currious if they were actually special forces or contractors.

And yes, I agree, it's way past time to address Syria's complicity regarding the matter at hand.

You're right about the date of the grand jury testimony.  However, the perjury charges in the grand jury are for testimony essentially identical to those charged in the false statement counts.  The false statement counts arise from sessions with the FBI in October and November 2003, prior to Fitzgerald's appointment.

Therefore, if the "friendly prosecution" theory makes any sense (and I don't want to push it too far, it's just speculation), it could simply be that Libby was committed to those statements at that point.

I tried (unsuccessfully) to determine the exact date that Ashcroft recused himself from the case, but from all appearances it was in the December time frame as well, right before the appointment of Fitzgerald.  So, in that respect at least, your theory still holds.

I think the "friendly prosecution" theory is interesting and not without some merit. But, aside from the timeline problems with some of it, I suspect Libby wouldn't have placed all his bets on the belief that Ashcroft would wink at lying because it's too speculative and leaves too much to chance for a person Michael Ledeen describes as "cautious" and the MSM describes as a deep thinker.

As for sticking with his intial story, Libby could have explained that away quickly as a mistaken recollection. Instead, he stuck with it through the whole process and even after being prompted about that very possibility before the GJ (Count V).

And, again, as Martha just found out and as Clinton nearly found out, lying to the feds gets you in a lot of trouble. Libby almost certainly would have known that. Yet, he did so and continued to do so if the indictment is accurate.

Why?