Friday, October 28, 2005

Ok.... In a nut shell (Fitzmas)

As *I* read this

Libby as the VP's chief of staff investigated who sent Joe Wilson. The bulk of the misstatements are on the fact he said he didn't know at the time he talked to reporters something he was investigating

Let me seperate these into good ( for libby) and Bad for libby

The good are all good because they happened after or during his talks to the press. Which means he could say "I was doing my investigation and i really didn't remember it"

July 8th: he asked the VP counsel's office what paperwork would be needed if the CIA sent a spouse of an agent on an assignment
July 8th a assistant to the VP told him Plame was a CIA agent.

The Bad regard the VP, a UnderSec of State, and his CIA briefer telling him.

As it looks here. About the time Joe Wilson was saying the VP sent him to africa the Vp looked into it and had Libby briefed on the subject.

The second wave of tellings occured around the time Joe Wilson made his article.
So very easily scooter Libby could have forgot (you ever forget?) that he had the earlier briefings at the time.

Now, his obstruction of justice charge comes from his not saying information which the Special Counsel already knows... so I have to think this use of the Obstruction of Justice Charge is to get Libby to flip.

Lying to the grand jury I've already said is a bogus charge. Perjury however for the same lies seems suspect.

These charges seem to be an attempt to get Libby to flip on some one else in the administration.

from the Fitzgerald PR
The charges allege that Libby lied to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and
November 26, 2003; committed perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5
and March 24, 2004; and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury’s investigation
into the unauthorized disclosure – or “leaking” – of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various
reporters in the spring of 2003.

Obstruction in his mind is making a statement which he knew to be false because he investigated and FOUND it.

For this to be provable perjury escapes my concept of reason at this time.

Prior to that date, her
affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Robert Novak said he knew before he heard the story. Several other reporters have as well.
Furthermore the CIA has alleged she was probably exposed by Aimes.
and a former supervisor of hers says she hadn't done clandestine work in over 5 years.

What is shocking is how Fitzgerald puts this in his PR but he only charges him with lying about statement he found to be -untrue-

If as he seems to present this was a release of classified information it is exceptionally clear Libby released it in an illicit manner under the terms of the charges against Libby

Libby was obligated by federal criminal
statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified
information to unauthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against
unauthorized disclosure.

Fitzgerald says this again, but has clear evidence ( absolute evidence) that Libby turned over this information.

So why isn't he filing charges under any of those things -if- it was a crime?
He is trying to get libby to flip on possibly bigger fish. A standard prosecutor trick.

here is the gem of the timeline

on or about June 23, 2003, Libby met with Judith Miller of The New York Times.
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 Miller Wilson’s wife might work at a
bureau of the CIA.

Libby said the CIA was selectively leaking intelligence. Yet we do not see anyone from the CIA under investigation. and Libby said here she "Might" work at the CIA. He didn't say she did... he wasn't providing information.

on or about the morning of July 8, 2003, Libby met with Miller of The New York
Times. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, Libby
asked that the information he 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 regarding other information that Libby provided to Miller
during this meeting. Libby then 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;

CIA was leaking information
did not reveal she worked for the CIA

a real crime, and a fake crime.

on or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke to a senior White House
official (“Official A”) ( Karl Rove who advised Libby of a conversation Official A (Karl Rove)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;

I think with their focus on Rove this has to be him.

Here no crime was said to have occured -nor a criminal action of conspiracy discussed-

on or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone to Cooper,
who asked whether Libby had heard that Wilson’s wife was involved in sending
Wilson on the trip to Niger. Libby confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or
qualification, that he had heard this information too; and

Still no criminal action

on or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, Libby spoke by telephone with
Miller and discussed Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA.

This MAY be a crime. So his inability to charge him with this as a crime is a curiosity.

In fact, Libby well knew that he did not advise Cooper or other reporters
that he had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby
advise Cooper or other reporters that he did not know whether this assertion was true.

When did it become a crime to lie to reporters?

This seems to me now to be A) a fishing attempt and ( more importantly) B) a vain attempt to justify the waste of money.

As he was only able to find one incident that -may- be a crime

No comments: