Month-Old Plame News

by emptywheel

Thanks to Jim E for alerting me to the fact, and thanks to TalkLeft for posting it, I've finally had a chance to look at the transcript from the February hearing on Scooter Libby's case. There's already a lively discussion going on in the comments here. But I wanted to point out two things I noticed in the reading.

First, Libby's team appears to be arguing that Libby totally forgot that Cooper told him he had heard of Plame's identity. Assuming Libby didn't just forget, but rather just lied about it, that suggests that Libby and Rove did one more thing (in addition to fiddling with the phone logs and burying the Rove-Hadley email) to eliminate all trace of Rove's conversation with Cooper.

Second, Jeffress seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. He spends a good deal of time arguing he needs to know Mr. X's identity, so he can subpoena him. But then he claims that Libby was told Mr. X had told journalists about Plame. Only when Judge Walton catches him in the logical contradiction does Jeffress revert to his Hail Mary pass, bringing up the transcript where Mr. X claims "everyone knew it."

The Importance of the Matt Cooper Lie

I've always been a little confused about why Fitzgerald included the Matt Cooper conversation in Libby's indictment. After all, the substance of the difference between Libby's and Cooper's version of the conversation wasn't that great (did Cooper tell Libby or Libby tell Cooper? Did Libby claim all the journalists knew?) And Cooper doesn't add anything to the chronology, as the July 8 Judy conversation does.

But look how Jeffress portrays the substance of the Cooper conversation as something that Libby forgot altogether, rather than misattributed.

MR. JEFFRESS: Your Honor, the indictment in this case alleges that Mr. Libby lied about a conversation with Mr. Tim Russert in which Mr. Libby recalled that Tim Russert told him, mentioned the wife to him and said all the reporters know it. Mr. Libby also testified that he was hearing that reporters were mentioning to the White House as opposed to vice versa that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. Mr. Libby in the grand jury identified two particular people from the press who he recalled had given that information either to him from someone else in the White House who had passed it on to him. The government says that he is wrong about Mr. Russert, who was one of those two people, and indeed that he lied about the conversation. But the indictment also alleges that there is someone who did tell Mr. Libby about this who Mr. Libby didn't remember when did testify at the grand jury, and that is Mr. Cooper and that's alleged in the indictment. [emphasis mine]

This is important for several reasons. One, at least at this point of the hearing (and Libby already has his notes from the period of June 27, when he met with Woodward), Libby is not claiming that he heard about Plame from Woodward.

But also, look at the way Jeffress describes Matt Cooper's importance to this case. Libby's team will be arguing not so much that Libby lied about the content of the Cooper conversation, but that he forgot that Cooper had told Libby about Plame. I can think of two reasons why a guy, busy fabricating a defense that journalists and not the Veep told him about Plame's identity, might forget the only journalist (that we've identified so far, at least) that told him of Plame's identity. First, Cooper told him too late. Libby receiving a leak on July 12 doesn't then exonerate Libby for the things he said to Judy on July 8. (Then again, this is the guy who told someone else about Plame on July 7, just three days before he claims he learned it as if it were new from Russert on July 10, so physical realities like time don't seem to bind our Scooter Libby.)

The other reason Libby might lie about Cooper telling him of Plame, rather than vice versa, is because it would eliminate any logical evidence that Cooper had received the leak before his conversation with Libby. In other words, it would cover up the fact that Karl Rove leaked the news to Cooper one day earlier on July 11. Add Libby's lies, then, to the missing phone logs and the disappearing emails to Hadley, as evidence that Rove and Libby tried to cover up Rove's conversation with Cooper entirely.

If this was the intent, it worked. Even when Fitzgerald finally got Cooper to testify in August 2004 (that is, the first time), he seemed to believe that Libby was definitely Cooper's source. He seemed to be completely unaware that Rove had spoken to Cooper a day earlier. This suggests, btw, that Libby was protecting not just Dick with his lies, but also Rove.

The Identity of Mr. X

But now Jeffress is going to sow confusion because it gives him a reason to demand more information on Mr. X. He introduces Mr. X early in the hearing (frothing at the mouth, our Nixon lawyer is).

First, there is the identify of a particular government official, obviously not in the White House, who told two reporters as early as mid-June of 2003 about Mrs. Wilson. I don't feel, because a lot of these revelations are made in letters that are marked confidential and are covered in an affidavit filed under seal, I don't feel comfortable going beyond I guess that description publicly.

Jeffress doesn't say why it's obvious that this person wasn't in the White House (nor does he specify whether he means now or then, in 2003). But it's possible that the transcript says something like, "the goddamn White House kept pushing this goddamn Niger uranium down our throat even though our own  intelligence service has thoroughly refuted it." Which would certainly provide a clue to the reader that the speaker was not part of the White House (and might also be a hint that the speaker is the colorful speaker Armitage).

In any case, this appears to be the same person as Official One, described later in the hearing.

Official one -- we know of two reporters that official one talked to. And you know, and I don't mean, and by the way we talked about innocent accused. And certainly I'm not here to tell you that official one did anything wrong whatsoever. But we do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters. How many others did he discussed it with? How many others discussed it with him? We don't have a single piece of information from the government as to what official one said about that. We presume that they have interviewed official one and we presume that he has testified . But we don't know that and we don't know a single thing that he has said about that.

How does Jeffress know what Official One (I prefer Mr. X) told two journalists, presumably Woodward and Novak? The strongest indication we've had so far that Mr. X is the source for both Woodward and Novak is Fitzgerald's ex parte affidavit, which had not yet been released (indeed, how it would be released is a central topic of discussion at this hearing). But even the redacted affidavit leaves open the (unlikely) possibility that Novak and Woodward had different sources. Is Jeffress just working off news reports here? Novak's claim that he knows his source is the same as Woodward's? Kind of dicey evidence for a court of law, isn't it?

Now look at what Jeffress does with Mr. X. He alleges (though leaves it nice and vague) that one of the reporters (let's just call him Woodward) told Libby that Mr. X had discussed Plame (this is remarkable not least because in the passage I cited above, Jeffress admits that in the grand jury, at least, Libby only admitted to knowing of Russert and Mr. X through Rove's spreading the story). Jeffress makes this claim ... but then quickly backs off it, referring only to Libby learning of Mr. X telling another journalist (let's call him Novak) through another government official (let's call him Rove).

MR. JEFFRESS: Mr. Libby said that he had heard this. One of the reporters told Mr. Libby offical one discussed Ms. Wilson. The government says one of those didn't tell him that. However, the government in the indictment has revealed another person who did tell him that. So you know we have two people but the government specifically alleges in the indictment that when Mr. Libby said that he was hearing this from other reporters that was part of the lie that's charged in this case. [emphasis mine]

I think, but I'm not sure, Judge Walton recognizes the substitution of Novak-Rove for Woodward here, because he presses for more detail. And Jeffress continues to elide the two events, never specifying how Libby learned of Mr. X's involvement.

THE COURT: Do we know in what form it was where Mr. Libby says he heard? Was it at the White House?

MR. JEFFRESS: He heard it, well, what he testified that is public in the indictment but I can tell you, Your Honor, yes, he heard from another official at the White House who reported to him that a reporter told me today that he knew that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. That's one source from which he got it. Knew that it came from a reporter. That's one. Mr. Libby was told it came from offical one. [emphasis mine]

Libby was told it came from official one. A very adept use of the passive there. Is Jeffress suggesting that Novak shared his sources with Libby? Did he do that directly, or did he do that only via Rove? Or is he saying simply that Woodward told Libby, back on June 27, even though Woodward doesn't remember it and neither did Libby, during his grand jury appearances? And what if Libby heard directly from Novak? Did Novak tell him while they were planning a cover-up in Fall 2003?

Of course the question of how and whether Libby learned of Mr. X puts Jeffress in a bit of a bind. Either Libby really did learn, from either Woodward or Novak or Novak-Rove, that Mr. X was talking about Plame. In which case he can subpoena Mr. X directly and Fitzgerald doesn't have to reveal Mr. X's identity. Which is what Walton points out.

THE COURT: You have the ability obviously to investigate that.

Or Libby was never told of Mr. X's identity, in which case Libby's team needs to learn Mr. X's identity from Fitzgerald. But that's not what Jeffress argued.

Everyone Knows It

Which is when, boxed in as he is, Jeffress decides to blow sealed evidence.

MR. JEFFRESS: Your Honor, there is one thing that I neglected to mention and again this is subject to filings that have been made under seal but there is, in fact, a transcript of a tape recording that involves official one. And I remind you, Your Honor, that's exactly who we're talking about. In the particular transcript there is, and the government filed something else yesterday, there is a factual dispute as to what is said or what is meant by a portion of the transcript wherein it appears the official saying, "everyone knows it," referring to the wife's employment at the CIA.

[snip]

MR. FITZGERALD: Your Honor, now that we have sort of burned what was sealed, my understanding of that conversation, there are people talking over each other, my understanding is that was a reference that everyone knows it, that Mr. Wilson is the unnamed ambassador.

Judge Walton apparently hasn't seen this transcript. So by raising it, Jeffress creates the appearance of materiality to the case, in such a way that might sway Walton to let him publicize Mr. X's identity. But I'm sure he raised this, blew confidentiality, not just for Walton's benefit. Jeffress is working the press as much as he's working the judge here, in an attempt to suggest Mr. X may be more implicated in this than Fitzgerald is letting on.

Libby didn't hire a former Nixon lawyer from James Baker's firm for nothing, you know.

Update: Typos fixed per &y and then some.

Comments

[&y]

Wow. I'm going to have to read this one again (and, probably, again) before it really sinks in. Thanks for the update.

Typo patrol: (1) "he seemed to believe that Libby was definitely Libby's source"; (2) "goddamn Niger uranium down our through even though our own intelligence"

[Jeff]

Great new Waas article. The upshot: Bush knew and well knew there were major doubts about the aluminum tubes, and the whole Niger business functioned in part as heated distraction from that fact in July 2003. Bush's own personal one-page summary of the now-infamous October 2002 NIE (as well as other sources Bush availed himself of) acknowledged the doubts on the aluminum tubes, and that had to be kept underwraps until after the 2004 elections. Presidential knowledge was the real problem, and Bush didn't know about the doubts about the Niger uranium intelligence. So focusing on the 16 words, and keeping the presidential summary of the NIE super-classified, helped keep attention away from the aluminum tubes issue. Several good new details as well, especially on Hadley.

[William Ockham]

That Waas article raises a lot of questions. First and foremost, who needs to leak this now? It really seems like a response to Libby's new storyline. If that's the case, then I suspect Tenet is the main source for this. He is certainly a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. And he has several reasons to be upset with the new Libby narrative. Of course, he not a Republican political appointee involved in the process (that sounds like Powell or one of his surrogates).

Another interesting part of the piece is that it leads with Karl Rove, but it is almost all about Hadley. The most interesting bits aren't directly sourced. I wonder what eRiposte will make of the timeline on the aluminum tubes and Niger stories (as I read the article, it pretty much confirms several things that eRiposte has dug out).

[freepatriot]

so Libby hid the Cooper conversation to protect Rove (that's the conspiricy right there-rove to cooper then libby to cooper)

and now scooter says that he remembers that two people told him something that he doesn't remember anything about

before he's done, libby will prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral cretainty that there was a criminal conspiricy between libby, rove, and the WHIG to out Valerie Plame

[emptywheel]

freepatriot

Let's hope so.

[TM]

The other reason Libby might lie about Cooper telling him of Plame, rather than vice versa, is because it would eliminate any logical evidence that Cooper had received the leak before his conversation with Libby...

If this was the intent, it worked.

"Worked" in what sense? Obviously, Fitzgerald found out about it eventually.

Or did this push the whole process past the election? Are you really sure that if Libby had simply told "the truth" about the Cooper chat, that Fitzgerald would have drilled down to Rove and handed down indictments by the fall of 2004?

Alternatively, even if Libby had told the truth about Cooper, Fitzgerald still would have negotiated for his testimony (as he did), gotten it in the summer of 2004 (as he did) and been puzzling over a next step after Cooper confirmed Libby's version.

And of course, Judy was still unresolved.

[emptywheel]

If Libby had testified about confirming for Cooper, rather than telling him, I doubt Fitz would have been willing to limit Cooper's testimony to Libby in Summer 2004. But we can't tell whether it would have pushed it beyond the election.

[TM]

I doubt Fitz would have been willing to limit Cooper's testimony to Libby in Summer 2004.

Pincus, Kessler and Russert seemd to deliver pretty limited testimony. Why not Cooperer?

[obsessed]

more 6-month old Plame news

actually it's some very valuable (to me anyway) clarification on a pre-indictment Leopold scoop on Hannah

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040306Z.shtml

[Jeff]

Pincus, Kessler and Russert seemd to deliver pretty limited testimony. Why not Cooperer?

Because if Libby had testified that Cooper brought up Plame and merely confirmed for him, Fitzgerald would have known that Cooper had another, earlier source on Plame and Fitzgerald would have wanted to know about that source.

As it was, the initial subpoena to Cooper was broad, and narrowed subsequently by Fitzgerald to Libby alone, presumably because he either believed that Libby was Cooper's first source or because he thought he could use that pretext, supported by Libby's testimony, to get Cooper into the grand jury room more easily, at which point he could press Cooper for more information, or be in a better position to go after him again, as actually transpired. The WaPo reported that Fitzgerald seemed surprised when Cooper made clear that Libby was merely a confirming source for him - but something, I can't remember what, that I've read made me think that Fitzgerald may have been faking that surprise.