The Scooter Libby Trial: The Russert Charges

by emptywheel

---

Buy Anatomy of Deceit on Amazon
Buy Anatomy of Deceit from my local indy bookstore

For more news on FDL/emptywheel/Huffington Post coverage of the trial see this

---

The other day, I laid out the known evidence relating to the Cooper false statement and perjury charges against Libby. In this post, I will look at the known evidence relating to the false statements and perjury charges relating to Libby's conversation with Russert.

This one is a bit trickier than the charges relating to the Cooper conversation, because there are two things Libby is alleged to have lied about: the contents of the conversation with Russert on July 10, and how he learned of Plame's identity and whether he knew her identity was classified.

The Content of the Russert Conversation
Libby is alleged to have lied about what transpired in the conversation between him and Russert. Here's what Libby claimed to have transpired during his FBI interviews:

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.

But Fitzgerald will argue that Russert did not ask whether Libby knew about Plame:

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;

Note the formulation of this--Fitzgerald doesn't assert whether or not Libby told Russert (though Russert has sworn Libby did not tell him of Plame), he only asserts that Russert did not tell Libby. This would serve as a real basis of proof that Libby's other alleged lie (that journalists told him of Plame) was false, but I suspect Libby will take some time to suggest that maybe Woodward told him of Plame and therefore it's all Armitage's fault and he really did learn of this from a journalist, he just forgot which esteemed journalist he heard it from. That won't negate this claim wrt Russert, but it'll make the memory defense wrt the other journalists more plausible.

With regards to this claim, though, the primary pieces of evidence appear to be Libby's word and Russert's word. Unlike the other journalists who will testify for the government, Russert did not take notes from the conversation.

There are two other potential witnesses relating this charge. There are at least two (and, I suspect, more than two) people who know Libby's intent when he called Russert--to bitch about Chris Matthews' coverage of the Niger controversy and insinuate he was an anti-Semite. Libby asked Cathie Martin to ask Adam Levine to call Matthews to complain about his cover, which Levine did. After Levine made no headway with Matthews, he suggested Libby call Russert to complain. This testimony would not, of course, verify anything about what Russert said (and Levine was not expected to be a witness last year). But it would verify the purpose of the conversation.

There is one more person who I suspect will be on call to testify: Neal Shapiro, the president of MSNBC. Just after his call with Libby, Russert called Shapiro to explain Libby's complaints (after which Shapiro recommended they reel Matthews in--Libby's pressure had its desired effect!). Shapiro can't testify as a witness to the content of Russert's call. But, if I'm understanding what looseheadprop tried to patiently explain yesterday, Shapiro could be called in case Libby's team accused Russert of making up his story after the fact; Shapiro would effectively show that Russert told his version of the story contemporaneously, it wasn't a response to Fitzgerald subpoena.

Even though (and partially because) there is no paper documentation of this conversation, Russert and Shapiro are going to be much harder to impeach than Judy Miller. Russert is Mr. Respectability, after all. And Dick has been interviewed by him subsequent to these events. Doesn't Vice President's willingness to sit for an interview with someone add to his credibility (I mean, if you ignore Dick's habit of sitting for interviews with Brit Hume)? (Come to think of it, wtf was that about--Dick had to know that he might hurt Libby's case by sitting for that interview).

Libby's Knowledge of Plame
I have no idea whether Russert's word about his conversation with Libby will be convincing to jurors. But that's only part of these false statements/ perjury charge. The other part is the doozy--wherein Libby claims to have learned of Plame from Russert, even though he told Ari of her identity just three days earlier. As Fitzgerald has said repeatedly through this process, there is a long list of government officials with whom Libby talked of Plame before the Russert conversation:

• June 11 or 12: Marc Grossman
• June 11: Roger Grenier
• June 12: Dick Cheney
• June 14: Craig Schmall
• shortly after June 19: Eric Edelman
• sometime in this period: Cathie Martin
• July 7: Ari Fleischer
• sometime after July 6: David Addington

The timing (Grossman) or the content (Edelman and Ari) of some of these conversations is contested by Libby. But some of these things aren't contested, most notably that Dick told Libby of Plame's identity.

However, that will not itself prove that Libby lied about learning of Plame from Russert. That's because Libby admits to having learned of Plame from Cheney, but when he heard it from Russert, it was as if it were new.

And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.

So the burden for this charge is to prove that Libby still knew of Plame, not that he had once known of her. This means the key witnesses are those who spoke to Libby about Plame in the days just before his conversation with Russert: Ari, Martin, and Addington, as well as those who suggest some continuity, like Edelman. It's unclear how Libby's lawyers will try to discredit Martin (though, in everything we've read, the date of their conversation is vague, so she may not be the best witness on this subject--though she presumably will be on the obstruction charge).

As to Ari, he is far and away the most likely candidate to be the witness who has received immunity for his testimony in this. That suggests Libby will be able to suggest he only testified to avoid his own trouble. But I suspect Fitzgerald wouldn't have immunized him (if he did) unless he could bring something substantive to the table. Perhaps Ari has documentation on his conversation with Libby on July 7, which would be pretty damning. In any case, if Ari is the immunized witness, it is likely that his credibility will depend on what he was at risk himself for

Addington will be another matter altogether. He is sure to be an unfriendly witness for the prosecution. But at the same time, he appears to be a witness to Libby's knowledge of Plame's CIA employ on July 8, either just before or after his conversation with Judy. I honestly believe Fitzgerald's handling of Addington as a witness may be one of the most critical aspects of the trial--if the testimony Addington appears to have already given is credible, it will be very difficult for Libby to claim he learned of Plame's identity "as if it were new" on July 10. He not only was talking about Plame's CIA employ to Addington, he was using it as a reference point to research more details about Joe Wilson!!

Libby's team will no doubt try to throw Woodward into the equation. As I suggested, they are likely to claim that Woodward must have told Libby of Plame's identity on June 23 or 27, at a time about a week past Libby's last known mention of Plame (and remember--Libby's team is contesting the content of the Edelman conversation that took place after June 19). As a reminder, here is what Woodward testified to:

I also testified that I had a conversation with a third person on June 23, 2003. The person was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and we talked on the phone. I told him I was sending to him an 18-page list of questions I wanted to ask Vice President Cheney. On page 5 of that list there was a question about "yellowcake" and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's weapons programs. I testified that I believed I had both the 18-page question list and the question list from the June 20 interview with the phrase "Joe Wilson's wife" on my desk during this discussion. I testified that I have no recollection that Wilson or his wife was discussed, and I have no notes of the conversation.

[snip]

I testified that on June 27, 2003, I met with Libby at 5:10 p.m. in his office adjacent to the White House. I took the 18-page list of questions with the Page-5 reference to "yellowcake" to this interview and I believe I also had the other question list from June 20, which had the "Joe Wilson's wife" reference.

I have four pages of typed notes from this interview, and I testified that there is no reference in them to Wilson or his wife. A portion of the typed notes shows that Libby discussed the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, mentioned "yellowcake" and said there was an "effort by the Iraqis to get it from Africa. It goes back to February '02." This was the time of Wilson's trip to Niger.

When asked by Fitzgerald if it was possible I told Libby I knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his assignment, I testified that it was possible I asked a question about Wilson or his wife, but that I had no recollection of doing so. My notes do not include all the questions I asked, but I testified that if Libby had said anything on the subject, I would have recorded it in my notes.

If they are successful in introducing Woodward's testimony, they will effectively be arguing that Libby was right when he said he learned of Plame from a journalist, "as if it were new," and then passed it on to other journalists, but that he just plain old confused Woodward for Russert. That might be enough to raise questions in the jury's minds about the charge.

The biggest problem with this gambit is Judy.

If (a big if) Judy can retain some credibility, the she will be a witness--with notes to back her up--that Libby knew and spoke of Plame's identity on June 23 and on July 8. At this point it comes down to a question of timing. Will Libby claim that Woodward passed on the Plame leak over the phone (notably, the only conversation in this whole affair in which Woodward did not take notes or record the conversation). If not, than Judy's June 23 conversation really hurts any attempt Libby would make to peddle this story.

And it all may rest, finally, on one unknown detail: which happened first on June 23? Judy's conversation with Libby, or Woodward's?

Unanimity
It's worth mentioning one more thing. In the discussions about jury instructions, Fitzgerald proposed--and Libby's team has largely accepted--that the instructions make it very clear that the entire jury must agree on which statement Libby made was false. Here's Libby's version of the language:

In order to render a guilty verdict on a particular count, however, all jurors must unanimously agree on at least one false statement as alleged in the count you are considering. It is not enough, for example, that six of you agree that one false statement has been proved and six of your agree that a different false statement has been proved. You must all agree unanimously that the government has proved a particular false statement beyond a reasonable doubt.

While this may come into play with the Cooper charges (that is, it is possible the jury will be split on whether Libby's claim to have told journalists he learned of Plame from journalists was false, and/or whether Libby's claim to have told journalists he didn't know if Plame's CIA employ was true or not was false), I think the Russert charge is the charge for which Fitzgerald wanted to include this instruction. It is quite possible that some jurors will find Russert eminently believable, but also find the Woodward smokescreen plausible as well. That is, a jury may split on whether they believed Libby lied about the Russert meeting deliberately or whether he lied about how he learned of Plame's identity before he told all these journalists. Since Fitzgerald's argument for obstruction likely rests on the treatment of Libby's July 8 conversation with Judy (that is, that's one of the main things Libby was trying to hide), then  clarifying which statement a jury finds to be false may well affect the obstruction charge.

But I'll save that--and the rest of my obstruction discussion--for the next installment.

 

Comments

[marily]

I am so happy to have bought your book for myself in nj and my best friend in houston; we will follow the trial together with your help. Thank you, ew, and many wishes for your continued success.

[Ann in AZ]

For the life of me, I cannot imagine how Libby got himself into this mess! He is presumably smart and sophisticated enough to be working at the White House at the highest levels, but from what I've seen and heard, he may have a law degree, but I wouldn't want him defending me, due to the poor job he is doing defending himself. I'll repeat myself from the below thread, where did he buy his law degree, at Sears? Why did he leave himself no wiggle room. I'm sure college dropout Karl Rove gave himself wiggle room, and he appears to have completely wiggled out of his loose lips problem. I just can't understand it.

My other point is that, to me it is totally unbelieveable that he could have talked to so many people on this subject, and yet forgot that he once knew Valerie Plame's identity as Joe Wilson's wife when he talked to Russert. Then to point a finger at Tim Russert, who is not only a journalist with a lot of credibility, but is also a lawyer who would understand the full implications of perjuring himself is utterly outrageous. Plus, Russert would have no apparent motive to lie about not telling Libby about Plame. If anything, he might actually have had a motive to lie the other way...I mean look at Woodward's behavior when he discovered that he was the first journalist to have been told about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. He couldn't wait to get the information to the public, regardless that he would become embroiled in the legal tangle of this case. Look at Andrea Mitchell's behavior when she believed that other journalists may have known something that she now claims not to have known. But she sure appeared to claiming that she, too, was privy to the information, with her statements about "All the journalist knew!" She had to backpedal wildly to keep from being drawn in. Unless Libby can actually convince the jury that he is an idiot, it would seem that he's sunk, but then, I guess stranger things have happened.

[freepatriot]

scooter libby had EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSAYIONS with government officials, who WERE NOT WOODWARD, about Valerie Plame

June 11 or 12: Marc Grossman June 11: Roger Grenier June 12: Dick Cheney June 14: Craig Schmall shortly after June 19: Eric Edelman sometime in this period: Cathie Martin July 7: Ari Fleischer sometime after July 6: David Addington

and then when he was asked about his conversations about Valerie Plame, he mistakenly misremembered A SINGLE CONVERSATION WITH BOB WOODWARD AS BEING A CONVERSATION WITH POTATOHEAD ???

so how does scooter explain his failure to remember EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ???

As LBJ would say: that dog don't hunt

[Jeff]

I would just underline that Fitzgerald seems to have structured the charge so that even if Russert did tell Libby about Plame, Libby still lied insofar as he testified that he was surprised by the information and was hearing it as though he were learning for the first time. I presume part of the point is to make the charge as strong as possible, but also part of the point is that Libby's alleged lie about being surprised goes right to the key question of how he learned about Plame's employment, and therefore what he passed on about it.

At the same time, I do think that, as long as Libby's defense can get all reference to Libby's leak of the NIE to Woodward kept out of the trial, they will likely argue that Libby may just have confused hearing from Russert with hearing from Woodward. And that could presumably work with the jury. The problem with it - in the real world, if not in the trial - is that that would mean there was only a period of little more than two weeks between the time that Cheney told Libby about Plame - and Libby noted it down in his notes - and that Libby would have heard from Woodward, which makes the idea that Libby forgot about Cheney telling him and wasn't even reminded of it by the conversation with the journalist harder to believe.

But again, that may not matter for the purposes of Libby's defense.

[freepatriot]

I usually just stick to the facts of this case, but here's a little speculation:

what if Ari testifies about scooter's "Wilson" scrap book ???

wouldn't that kinda destroy all of scooter's defense ???

I stand by my bet that scooter is going for an insanity plea, or an incompetent council appeal

no other action fits the evidence

unless scooter thinks a DC jury will buy the repugnican idea of "Up Is Downism"

kinda hard to say you "heard something as if it were new information" when you had EIGHT CONVERSATIONS about the topic, took NOTES during some of those conversations, and your main witness TOTALLY REFUTES YOUR CLAIMS

maybe a DC jury can be as delusional as the freepi, but I doubt it

[Blog]

Wait a second. How do you draw the conclusion from Wooodward's testimony, that it in any way backs Libby's? Neither Woodward nor Russert recall speaking about
Plame to Libby. Fitzgerald is going to attack this so mercilessly, that I don't even think Libby will be allowed to take the stand.

[emptywheel]

Libby will take the stand, definitely (otherwise Walton is going to be utterly furioius at him for taking two months of CIPA time that was all premised on Libby testifying).

And while I don't think the Woodward stuff by itself damages the case, I'm just thinking of what Libby's team will do. It really really really doesn't pay to forget that Ted Wells is a brilliant lawyer, just like Fitz. And all he has to do is create doubt.

[blog]

If both Woodward and Russert testify that they don't recall speaking of Plame to Libby, what possible doubt could there be? Another thing. Woodward did remember that Armitage spoke to him about Plame. How could he possibly not remember whether he spoke to Libby about Plame?

[Gary Reilly]

Slightly OT - EW do you think David Corn was the recipient of Novak's "Wilson is an asshole" diatribe?

Getting the book from Amazon. Thanks for all your tireless efforts to drain this swamp!

[pollyusa]

Additional Libby testimony related to Russert

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that he had told you back in June, June 12th or before, prior to the Pincus article, that his wife worked in the functional office of Counterproliferation of the CIA. Correct?

Q.So when you say, that after we learned that his worked at the Agency, that became a question. Isn't it to say that you already knew it from June 12th or earlier?

A. I believe by this week I no longer remembered that. I had forgotten it. And I believe that because when it was told to me on July 10, a few days after this article, it seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time. When I knew it when I heard.

[snip]

A. No, no, I'm not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife -- that reporters were telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation then with the Vice-President either late on the llth or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that. When I had that conversation I had forgotten about the earlier conversations in which he told me about -- reflected in my notes that we went over this morning, in early June, before the Pincus article, when he had told me that the wife worked at the CIA. I had just forgotten it.

Q. And you just affixed the, the person -- who did you speak to on July 10th or llth that you recalled learning again, thinking it was for the first time, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. Tim Russert of NBC News, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News.

REDACTED

[snip]

Q. And from July 6th, when the Novak -- July 6, when the Wilson piece appears, until July 12, when you were talking to reporters after Air Force Two, do you recall any conversation during that week where Vice-President Cheney observed or had it brought to his attention that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

A. I certainly don't recall any discussion about that prior to the Russert/Novak conversations when I learned about the wife, what I thought was the first time. And I don't recall, as I told you before, whether we discussed that on the plane that day.

REPLY TO THE RESPONSE OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S INQUIRY REGARDING NEWS ARTICLES THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO OFFER AT TRIAL filed 5/24/06
Exhibits A & B

[Swopa]

... scooter libby had EIGHT FUCKING CONVERSATIONS with government officials...

Um, I believe you're confusing this with the phone sex he had with Judy Miller on July 12th.

[Garrett]

I believe by this week I no longer remembered that. I had forgotten it. And I believe that because when it was told to me on July 10, a few days after this article, it seemed to me as if I was learning it for the first time.

Oh Ari. Oh Judy. Oh David. You have stabbed me in the back.

I could not have foreseen it.

And on post July 6 dates. That especially hurts.

--I. Lewis Libby

[blog]

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

[pow wow]

For anyone who would like to get a closer look at "Mr. Republican" Ken Duberstein (Armitage's 'good buddy'), apparently he will be interviewed on Charlie Rose tonight along with (if anyone can stomach it) William PNAC Kristol, to assess Bush's latest product pitch... Duberstein's level of loyalty to Bush at this stage might be an interesting tell (Duberstein was right at the front of the line with campaign cash for the Joseph Lieberman's fall Neocon Party re-election campaign). [Rose doesn't do free transcripts, as I recall, so watching or recording is the only route to catching his guests.]

[Swopa]

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

Particularly since he made a point of saying the conversation was after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NYT on July 7th.

[pollyusa]

Particularly since he made a point of saying the conversation was after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the NYT on July 7th

July 6th actually

Walton filed the Rules of Order for the trial today.

[Jeff]

Another thing I don't understand, is how could Libby mistake the conversation he had with Russert on July 10, with the conversation he had with Woodward 13 days before on June 27? It is simply preposterous.

To be clear, in the real world, it is preposterous. But in the context of the trial, Libby only needs to achieve reasonable doubt, and all he needs to argue, more or less, is something like this: recollecting events that were marginal to the overall arc of my very important and death-defying life several months after the fact, I made a basic error or memory in confusing Woodward on June 27 with Russert on July 10, and from there, I did the very natural thing of reconstructing everything else around it, which produce a whole bunch of false information but it was all innocent, and I'm not on trial for those specific false statements anyway. What's more, to make my story more plausible, here for your consideration is the very dean of the Washington press corps, who took down a Republican president, so no friend of mine, to testify that during that very conversation on June 27, he had notes in his hands that referred to Wilson's wife, and what's more, he says it's possible that he did mention it to me (that's true, he did say that, by the way).

Now, presumably, Fitzgerald is prepared for that, and has questions for Woodward like, "You say it's possible. But there's nothing in your notes reflecting Libby saying anything about it, and you testified that you would certainly have noted it down, correct? Which means that Libby did not say anything, correct? Which means that if you said something about WIlson's wife, he said absolutely nothing in response, correct? Now, you've said it's possible. Anything is possible, correct? In addition to what we've gone through, do you have any recollection of saying anything about her to Libby? none, you say? None whatsoever? Not even maybe? N, how would you estimate the probability that you said something to Libby about Wilson's wife? As close to zero as is possible, is that what you say? Thank you."

Or whatever.

[Swopa]

Whenever. :) Thanks, Polly.

[Jeff]

By the way, my understanding was that the motion hearing was supposed to continue today, dealing with the motions in limine, and perhaps the new CIPA stuff? But I've seen not a single report on any such thing, and I'd think reporters would be gearing up for the trial. Anybody know?

[pow wow]

Same here, Jeff. I've been keeping a look-out for any brief synopsis of today's proceedings, but haven't seen a thing. I take that as a sign that things are proceeding on schedule; any news favorable to Libby regarding a CIPA delay would have hit the wires lickety-split, I figure. Also, the Rules of Order that Polly posted above definitely make it sound like things are on track.

At a minimum, today was supposed to a Status/Scheduling Conference, and some media must have been there. But they're keeping the details to themselves, if so. Thanks to emptywheel and FDL, though, that won't be the case much longer. [It's going to be a mighty interesting and distracting scene in that First Floor Media Center where the live laptop blogging will be allowed to take place (for credentialed press pass holders anyway), what with all the corporate media milling about... I really do appreciate the fact that Judge Walton actually wrote the word "blogging" in his Rules of Order. Right on.]

[blog]

I think freepatriot is right. Libby is dead in the water. He had multiple conversations about Plame before he spoke with any reporters. The phone interview with Woodward occured on the same day, June 23, that he spoke with Miller. If the meeting with Miller occurred before his interview with Woodward then Libby is finished:

On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7.
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8.
Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
4
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 Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
10.
On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger afteran aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.
11.
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.
12.
On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” Among other things, the article questioned the “sixteen words” and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
5
13.
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that therewouldbe complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
14.
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
The July 6 “Op Ed” Article by Wilson
15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article about Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson. Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show “Meet the Press.” In his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the results of his trip.
6
LIBBY’s Actions Following Wilson’s July 6 “Op Ed” Column
16.
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.
17.
On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
18.
Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip.
19.
Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.

[hauksdottir]

So Judge Walton considers certain bloggers competent and intelligent enough to follow and comment upon his case? And making space for them? (as professionals sitting in a room rather than making a negotiable hazard of the hallways) Impressive and most excellent! :)

Libby must testify if he has any hope of convincing the jury that he has a rare form of bipolar disease: brilliant right-hand man to the most powerful man* in the country one hour and "nincompoop nellie" with a mind like a plastic sieve the next. If he doesn't take the stand and testify under oath in front of them, not only will the Judge be irritated, but the jurors will believe that Libby is hiding and obstructing. Like a man building a fence around a cesspool: he might obscure a direct view, but the stench will be obvious a mile away.

*Cheney runs the government, Bush struts around doing photo-ops.

[freepatriot]

now I'm a straigh man for Swopa ???

and that's considered a promotion in my neighborhood

life could be worse

I could be scooter libby

[blog]

The only sense I can make of the Cooper charges is that Libby told a lie within a lie, a veritable chinese box of lies. He claims that he was relaying information about Plame from other reporters to Cooper. Apparently, not only did Libby never make this statement, according to Cooper, but the statement is itself a lie. Russert and Woodward will seemingly deny they recall having told Libby about Plame. Libby had already disseminated the info about Plame to Miller seemingly before he had a chance to learn of it from any reporter. It is definitively established that he had already obtained the info about Plame from numerous goverment officals. So the fact that he was merely relaying info from reporters is lie number one. Lie number two is that he never actually made this statement to Cooper. In other words what he lied about saying to Cooper is itself a lie.

[katie Jensen]

Honestly it has taken forever for these details to come together for me. But I think I've got it. Libby's lie truly does put a cabosh on the conspiracy theory. But if Fitz can establish legally, that scooter lied, the conspiracy becomes a viable explanation. Libby is the finger holding back the water in the dike. And thank you so much for these posts. I just almost want to sqeal with delight whenever there is a post on plame.