It's Official! Libby Indicted!! And Then Resigns!!!
- Thread starter Djmarkxr7
- Start date
HRAPP_BROWN
Banned
All Of Em Need To Be Put In Jail For This Bullshit Ass War For Nothing! Bush On Down!
<font size="4">
<u>If</u> Libby lied, did he do so to protect <u>himself</u> or <u>others</u> ???
- If to protect himself, then from what ???
- If to protect others, then who ???
Of course, if he didn't lie, then is the indictment just a consolation prize, since no one was indicted for outting Valorie Plame ???
QueEx</font size>
<u>If</u> Libby lied, did he do so to protect <u>himself</u> or <u>others</u> ???
- If to protect himself, then from what ???
- If to protect others, then who ???
Of course, if he didn't lie, then is the indictment just a consolation prize, since no one was indicted for outting Valorie Plame ???
QueEx</font size>
QueEx said:
From what I'm hearing, Libby only lied to the grand jury according to the indictment. From what the pundits are saying, what he lied about wasn't even illegal, it's just the fact that he lied. I'm still trying to understand why Judy Miller went to jail even though she wasn't the one who actually outted Plame?!? (I know why but I don't feel that conservatives have ever given a good reason!)
nope plus Ashcroft made sure he was the "special counsel" and not "independent counsel" that's why he can't say or do shit aside from the grand juryGreed said:
If you watch the whole press conference on CSPAN Fitzgerald was asked about the Novak thing and had no answer.
------
Why isn't the big story that the White House was in dirty trick mode trying to make the guy who said there are no WMD's into a liar when he was right? Where's all the patriotism? Exposing an undercover CIA agent and lying about reasons to go to war and trying to discredit people who came out and said the WMD issue was false = Patriotism?
Why is it no big deal that in the course of trying to cover up lies to the American Public and UN White House staff exposed an under cover operative in the CIA?????????????? Is that a good thing for the "war on terror"? It doesn't matter because it barely comes up short of being illegal? WTF?
anyway a house divided.......... lol
Lieing to the grand jury is a no no. LOL. You're under oath -- sworn to tell the truth.Djmarkxr7 said:
Libby is a lawyer and knows better to lie to the grand jury. If he simply forgot what happened (this was a couple of years ago), thats one thing; but for some reason, the prosecutor didn't believe that whatever incongruities there were in Libby's testimony didn't come from a failing memory. He believes it\\the incongruities come from a deliberate attempt to evade the truth. Hence, why would a lawyer who knows better than to lie to a grand jury put himself in such a position unless: he was protecting himself from a larger charge ... or ... he was protecting someone else -- perhaps, out of loyalty.
QueEx
Who told Novak -- thats a question that has been bouncing around in my head for sometime. I've read quite a bit about this, but I'm not satisfied with the Novak issue either. Seems to me, that was a good place to start. Maybe the prosecutor did and we missed the outcome ?Greed said:
My understanding is that under the old special prosecutor law, which has expired (last case was Clinton-Lewinsky), a report would be due. I don't believe a report is required under this appointment.
QueEx
P.S. Seriously, I'd like to know more about the Novak connection.
Fitzgerald made comments about not being able to do things that Ken Starr etc did - the length of time was set too 16months for the grand jury with an 8 month extension or 18 with 6 or some such thingQueEx said:
He won't reveal any grand jury info not involved in allegations that end with indictments so anything not illegal that he found out about he won't address. If Rove is or isn't indicted it still might not come out until a trial. It could come out in Libby's trial who said what to Novak first considering Rove said Libby told him according to those "sources"
"In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial," the president said.
Bullshit, and everyone here on the board knows that. For reasons so obvious there is no need to reiterate.
Bullshit, and everyone here on the board knows that. For reasons so obvious there is no need to reiterate.
H
Hung Lo
Guest
eewwll said:This really has CIA written all over it.
Libby's just a patsy.
Ooops, excuse' moi.
In my opinion, Libby's just a patsy.
This is what caught my attention though for real. The vice president, who prizes secrecy," in other words doing shit that most people don't even know that he's doing. A crook's greatest ally is secrecy, yet and still there is no honor among theives.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
Hung Lo
Guest
eewwll said:What's up Hung Lo. I couldn't resist that one.
Yeah I know. Ain't nuthin' like a little humor during these tumultuous times.
Secretly though, deep down inside, I'd love to be in the CIA just to fuck with the police.
I was hoping someone had heard one of those juicy accurate leaks on the subject that inauspiciously seem to make there way into the public.Makkonnen said:
ESTABLISHING A BETTING LINE: There is not going to be a trial.
ODDS: 10 to 1 no trial.
If Libby is brought to trial, a lot of interesting people might be called to testify, including, the vice president. Libby impresses me as a loyalist: to his family, the people he works for; and the principles he purports to stand for. In my opinion, he is unlikely to betray those principles by exposing them in a trial.
I said earlier in this thread, one reason Libby might have been indicted was a faulty memory of things that happened in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if he uses that as a defense and ... at some point ... he offers up what info he recalls in a plea agreement. He is more likely to bite the bullent and take a short sentence/probation than turn up anyone earthshakinig.
ALL BETS OFF IF: it looks like those in the administration who might be harmed abandons him. Everyone will note the supportive statements of GW and Cheney. If, however, it begins to look like those with culpability are throwing bricks at Libby to save themselves, loyalty could turn betrayal.
just my Saturday morning, post-grey goose induced sleep prediction. lmao
QueEx
Could be himself;eewwll said:
Could be Cheney;
Could be someone in the CIA;
Could be Rove;
Could be the integrity of his office;
Could be the integrity of the executive branch;
Could be ... no one.
At this point, I'm going with it is someone higher than him or maybe
the integrity of the office of the vice president (integrity as in what
they are working on is classified and the prosecutors office doesn't
have the need-to-know it - and/or - the bits and pieces of leak-related
info is integral to a larger but legal scheme that has nothing to do
with outting Plame and .... to give the prosecutor all of those details
just to allow the prosecutor to see that Libby/Cheney were not
involved in the leak would undermine matters of national security).
Okay, I'm making shit up! lmao - but I didn't say it has CIA written
all over it !!! lol (continued peace to HL)
This is a good time for our lay-speculation, because in the weeks and
months to come, I reallly believe that the press will peck away at this
case until something juicy breaks off - or - a dud drops in our laps.
I wouldn't be surprised at either scenario. The one haunting thing in
this case that threatens to blow the whole shit up in someone face
is -- someone seems to have wanted to discredit Wilson. And,
where there is a will there is a way ... or an attempt.
QueEx
Face it Bruh, they're french just like the name sez. Anyway, if they are "not american" as you said, that still makes the "un-American" doesn't it ???Greed said:
I don't like the taste of Belvie and absolute is absolutely rough. But, I have a Absolute bottle around; I'll empty it during a college football game today and pour my next bottle of grey goose in. That should make it not american but not french either -- like your fries.
chill,
QueEx
Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
By TONI LOCY and PETE YOST, Associated Press Writers
15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.
Attorneys for the aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, described Wednesday's statement by the Washington Post's assistant managing editor as helpful for their defense, although Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury and the FBI, not with disclosing the CIA official's name.
"Hopefully, as information is obtained from reporters like Bob Woodward, the real facts will come out," lawyer Ted Wells said Wednesday.
Woodward, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, said he had not told his bosses until last month that he had learned about Valerie Plame's identity and her work at the CIA more than two years ago from a high-level Bush administration official.
When Woodward learned Plame's name, he told The Associated Press Wednesday, he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.
"The grand jury was going and reporters were being jailed, and I hunkered down more than I usually do," Woodward said, explaining why he waited so long to tell Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. what he knew about the Plame matter.
Woodward made his name with his coverage of the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration. He kept secret for decades the identity of "Deep Throat," a key source in that reporting.
Woodward said he had apologized for not giving Downie much earlier notice of his reporting on Plame.
To critics who are taking shots at him, Woodward said, "Journalism is a contact sport. I was 29 when people who really knew how to shoot were around," referring to Watergate.
Because his source in the leak case has refused to be identified publicly, Woodward said his hands are tied. "We can't tell the whole story. I would like to. It's one that will be told some day," he said.
Columnist Robert Novak disclosed Plame's identity and her work at the CIA on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, had accused the White House of misrepresenting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted last month on charges that he lied to FBI agents and a grand jury about when he learned Plame's identity and how he subsequently disclosed it to reporters.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in announcing the charges, portrayed Libby as the first high-level government official to reveal Plame's identity to reporters in summer 2003.
Legal experts said Wednesday the disclosure that Woodward had a source — who was not Libby — could be used by Libby's lawyers to bolster their claim that Plame's identity was common knowledge among government officials and reporters.
"Much was made of the fact that Libby set all of this in motion, that he was the first government official to reveal this," said former Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., now a defense attorney in Washington.
"As a defense attorney, I'd try to make as much of this as I possibly could to call into question the completeness of the investigation and raise concerns about a rush to judgment." However, he said, "I'm not sure at the end of the day that it hurts the trial of this case."
Robert W. Ray, a former independent counsel, said the Woodward disclosure won't help Libby if his defense is that he wasn't the only official leaking Plame's identity. "The point was: Did you make false statements and perjure yourself?" Ray said.
The Washington Post said Wednesday that Woodward had given a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday. According to the Post, Woodward's source told Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment that the source had talked to Woodward in mid-June 2003. Woodward also talked to Libby and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card at about the same time in connection with his book. But Woodward said in a statement printed in the Post that he didn't recall talking about Plame with Card or Libby.
Card, Libby and the remaining source — still unidentified — released Woodward from promises of confidentiality so he could answer Fitzgerald's questions. But the remaining source — at least as of Wednesday — refused to allow Woodward or the Post to identify him or her publicly.
Fitzgerald's investigation was bogged down for months while he sought testimony from reporters who had gathered information about Plame, whose husband was sent to Africa by the CIA in early 2002 to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium "yellowcake."
Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter, spent 85 days in jail last summer after refusing to testify before a grand jury about her conversations with Libby in June and July of 2003.
Elsewhere on Wednesday, Libby spent several hours at the federal courthouse in an area designated for lawyers to review classified or sensitive government evidence.
Accompanied by his legal team, Libby walked into the courthouse without the crutches that he'd been using during a court appearance two weeks ago when he pleaded not guilty.
Other top Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, have testified before the grand jury.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove's legal team, said Rove was not the official who talked to Woodward. Rove was referred to, but not by name, in Libby's indictment as having discussed Plame's identity with reporters.
Woodward is now assistant managing editor of the Post. In October, he was dismissive of the Plame revelation, telling CNN's Larry King that the damage from her exposure was "quite minimal."
Meanwhile, The Associated Press on Wednesday joined other news organizations in asking U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to deny a court motion by Fitzgerald for a blanket protective order keeping all pretrial evidence in Libby's case out of public view.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_woodward
Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
By TONI LOCY and PETE YOST, Associated Press Writers
15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.
Attorneys for the aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, described Wednesday's statement by the Washington Post's assistant managing editor as helpful for their defense, although Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury and the FBI, not with disclosing the CIA official's name.
"Hopefully, as information is obtained from reporters like Bob Woodward, the real facts will come out," lawyer Ted Wells said Wednesday.
Woodward, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, said he had not told his bosses until last month that he had learned about Valerie Plame's identity and her work at the CIA more than two years ago from a high-level Bush administration official.
When Woodward learned Plame's name, he told The Associated Press Wednesday, he was in the middle of finishing a book about the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, and didn't want to be subpoenaed to testify.
"The grand jury was going and reporters were being jailed, and I hunkered down more than I usually do," Woodward said, explaining why he waited so long to tell Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. what he knew about the Plame matter.
Woodward made his name with his coverage of the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration. He kept secret for decades the identity of "Deep Throat," a key source in that reporting.
Woodward said he had apologized for not giving Downie much earlier notice of his reporting on Plame.
To critics who are taking shots at him, Woodward said, "Journalism is a contact sport. I was 29 when people who really knew how to shoot were around," referring to Watergate.
Because his source in the leak case has refused to be identified publicly, Woodward said his hands are tied. "We can't tell the whole story. I would like to. It's one that will be told some day," he said.
Columnist Robert Novak disclosed Plame's identity and her work at the CIA on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, had accused the White House of misrepresenting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted last month on charges that he lied to FBI agents and a grand jury about when he learned Plame's identity and how he subsequently disclosed it to reporters.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in announcing the charges, portrayed Libby as the first high-level government official to reveal Plame's identity to reporters in summer 2003.
Legal experts said Wednesday the disclosure that Woodward had a source — who was not Libby — could be used by Libby's lawyers to bolster their claim that Plame's identity was common knowledge among government officials and reporters.
"Much was made of the fact that Libby set all of this in motion, that he was the first government official to reveal this," said former Deputy Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., now a defense attorney in Washington.
"As a defense attorney, I'd try to make as much of this as I possibly could to call into question the completeness of the investigation and raise concerns about a rush to judgment." However, he said, "I'm not sure at the end of the day that it hurts the trial of this case."
Robert W. Ray, a former independent counsel, said the Woodward disclosure won't help Libby if his defense is that he wasn't the only official leaking Plame's identity. "The point was: Did you make false statements and perjure yourself?" Ray said.
The Washington Post said Wednesday that Woodward had given a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday. According to the Post, Woodward's source told Fitzgerald after Libby's indictment that the source had talked to Woodward in mid-June 2003. Woodward also talked to Libby and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card at about the same time in connection with his book. But Woodward said in a statement printed in the Post that he didn't recall talking about Plame with Card or Libby.
Card, Libby and the remaining source — still unidentified — released Woodward from promises of confidentiality so he could answer Fitzgerald's questions. But the remaining source — at least as of Wednesday — refused to allow Woodward or the Post to identify him or her publicly.
Fitzgerald's investigation was bogged down for months while he sought testimony from reporters who had gathered information about Plame, whose husband was sent to Africa by the CIA in early 2002 to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium "yellowcake."
Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter, spent 85 days in jail last summer after refusing to testify before a grand jury about her conversations with Libby in June and July of 2003.
Elsewhere on Wednesday, Libby spent several hours at the federal courthouse in an area designated for lawyers to review classified or sensitive government evidence.
Accompanied by his legal team, Libby walked into the courthouse without the crutches that he'd been using during a court appearance two weeks ago when he pleaded not guilty.
Other top Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, have testified before the grand jury.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove's legal team, said Rove was not the official who talked to Woodward. Rove was referred to, but not by name, in Libby's indictment as having discussed Plame's identity with reporters.
Woodward is now assistant managing editor of the Post. In October, he was dismissive of the Plame revelation, telling CNN's Larry King that the damage from her exposure was "quite minimal."
Meanwhile, The Associated Press on Wednesday joined other news organizations in asking U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to deny a court motion by Fitzgerald for a blanket protective order keeping all pretrial evidence in Libby's case out of public view.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_woodward
Re: Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
<font size="5"><center>Another Grand Jury for Leak Case</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>Move Follows Woodward Talks</font size></center>
By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A01
The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said yesterday that he plans to present evidence to another federal grand jury, signaling a new and potentially significant turn in the investigation into the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Three weeks after indicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and declaring the investigation nearly complete, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced a new phase in the investigation after the disclosure this week that a senior administration official revealed Plame's CIA connection to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003.
Legal experts said Fitzgerald's decision to call upon a new grand jury is all but certainly because he is considering additional criminal charges in the case.
Two sources close to Karl Rove, the top Bush aide still under investigation in the case, said they have reason to believe Fitzgerald does not anticipate presenting additional evidence against the White House deputy chief of staff. Instead, lawyers involved in the case expect the prosecutor to focus on Woodward's admission that an official other than Libby told him about Plame one month before her identity was publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.
Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source's name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case. The source came forward to the prosecutor again after Woodward started asking questions for an article on the CIA leak late last month and reminded the person of their 2003 conversation, Woodward said yesterday. That raises the possibility that the source faces legal problems if he or she provided false or incomplete information during previous testimony, according to legal experts.
Fitzgerald's decision to present information to a new grand jury, contained in a court filing and announced publicly at a court hearing on the Libby case yesterday, is the latest twist in an investigation that has rattled the White House and threatens top administration officials. "The investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury" from the one that indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, Fitzgerald said. "The investigation is continuing."
The most innocuous explanation for the new grand jury is that Fitzgerald simply wants to complete his probe and to put information on the record, perhaps about Woodward's source or Rove, according to several legal experts, including some involved in the case.
But most lawyers interviewed for this article said Fitzgerald would not go through the trouble of calling upon a new grand jury -- after gathering so much testimony from and about Rove -- unless he is exploring new territory uncovered since the Oct. 28 Libby indictment.
"Whoever's Woodward's source probably feels terribly uncomfortable right now," said E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a Washington defense lawyer and former prosecutor.
Randall D. Eliason, a law professor who formerly ran the public corruption section of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said Fitzgerald is clearly "looking at new defendants or new charges." That is not good news for anybody concerned about their role in Plame's identity being leaked, Eliason added.
For nearly two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's identity as a CIA operative -- to the news media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name was revealed in Novak's column eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Libby, who was forced to resign from Cheney's office, was charged with committing perjury, providing false statements and obstructing justice and has denied wrongdoing. Libby's attorneys have called Woodward's disclosure a "bombshell" that could bolster Libby's defense.
In anticipation of a lengthy and expensive court fight, a number of Republican former senators, former ambassadors and fundraisers are planning to raise $250,000 each and a total of $5 million for Libby's legal fund, according to people familiar with the plan. In a private conversation earlier this week, Republicans such as former ambassadors Melvin Sembler and Howard Leach promised to raise at least $250,000. Former senators Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Alan K. Simpson (Wyo.) and former congressman Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) are also part of the fundraising campaign, the sources said.
"Good lawyers are expensive," said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the Libby legal team. A few Democrats, including R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, are also involved.
At the very least, Woodward's disclosure has put the spotlight on someone other than Libby for the moment. In his deposition, Woodward testified that he spoke with Libby twice in late June 2003 and does not recall Libby raising the subject of Plame. Woodward said it is possible he mentioned Plame to Libby because he had included her name on a list of questions he planned to ask, but he testified that he does not recall doing so, according to a statement he released on Tuesday.
Experts said that Fitzgerald is not trying to shore up his case on Libby. Under court rules, Fitzgerald cannot use a new grand jury to gather additional evidence for an indictment he has already brought, or to wrap up unanswered questions in preparation for Libby's trial. He can only call on a grand jury to hear evidence if he is considering new charges against another person or additional charges against Libby.
One mystery for the public -- but not for Fitzgerald -- is the identity of Woodward's source. Woodward said he contacted the source late last month for an article on the CIA leak case and discussed notes showing that the source had mentioned Plame in mid-June 2003. The source then went to Fitzgerald.
The source's situation appears not unlike Rove's. In his initial testimony, Rove did not reveal his conversation about Plame with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Only after an e-mail surfaced showing that Rove had discussed the issue with Cooper did the top Bush aide tell the grand jury about it. Sources close to Rove said he is under investigation for possibly providing misleading statements about the Cooper conversation.
Lawyers in the case say Woodward's source must not have initially mentioned the 2003 contact with him and told Fitzgerald about it only after talking to Woodward last month.
"None of this would be a news flash if this person had previously been interviewed or testified and had previously disclosed this information to investigators," Barcella said. "You have to assume they didn't disclose this interview with Woodward. Now the prosecutor has to investigate why they didn't."
Barcella said it may be difficult for the source to claim he did not recall talking to Woodward. "But, really, could anybody forget a conversation with the icon?" he asked.
At yesterday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told Libby's attorneys that he had read their recent comments about the Woodward matter in media accounts and urged them to hold their tongues until the trial, to avoid prejudicing future jurors. He said he has never issued a gag order in a case and hopes not to have to do so.
"I do have a very strong proclivity on cases being decided based on evidence presented in trial . . . not in the press," he said. "I assume . . . a word to the wise to be sufficient."
At the hearing, Fitzgerald reached a compromise with Dow Jones and Co. and the Associated Press to ensure that some evidence gathered in the Libby prosecution could be revealed publicly. The two sides agreed that classified material, private personal information and secret grand jury testimony will be kept secret from the public and the news media, but that other information can be revealed in court filings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5111800958.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>Another Grand Jury for Leak Case</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>Move Follows Woodward Talks</font size></center>
By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 19, 2005; Page A01
The prosecutor in the CIA leak case said yesterday that he plans to present evidence to another federal grand jury, signaling a new and potentially significant turn in the investigation into the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Three weeks after indicting I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and declaring the investigation nearly complete, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced a new phase in the investigation after the disclosure this week that a senior administration official revealed Plame's CIA connection to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003.
Legal experts said Fitzgerald's decision to call upon a new grand jury is all but certainly because he is considering additional criminal charges in the case.
Two sources close to Karl Rove, the top Bush aide still under investigation in the case, said they have reason to believe Fitzgerald does not anticipate presenting additional evidence against the White House deputy chief of staff. Instead, lawyers involved in the case expect the prosecutor to focus on Woodward's admission that an official other than Libby told him about Plame one month before her identity was publicly disclosed in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.
Woodward, who was questioned by Fitzgerald on Monday, has refused to reveal the source's name publicly, but a person familiar with the investigation said the source had testified earlier in the case. The source came forward to the prosecutor again after Woodward started asking questions for an article on the CIA leak late last month and reminded the person of their 2003 conversation, Woodward said yesterday. That raises the possibility that the source faces legal problems if he or she provided false or incomplete information during previous testimony, according to legal experts.
Fitzgerald's decision to present information to a new grand jury, contained in a court filing and announced publicly at a court hearing on the Libby case yesterday, is the latest twist in an investigation that has rattled the White House and threatens top administration officials. "The investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury" from the one that indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, Fitzgerald said. "The investigation is continuing."
The most innocuous explanation for the new grand jury is that Fitzgerald simply wants to complete his probe and to put information on the record, perhaps about Woodward's source or Rove, according to several legal experts, including some involved in the case.
But most lawyers interviewed for this article said Fitzgerald would not go through the trouble of calling upon a new grand jury -- after gathering so much testimony from and about Rove -- unless he is exploring new territory uncovered since the Oct. 28 Libby indictment.
"Whoever's Woodward's source probably feels terribly uncomfortable right now," said E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a Washington defense lawyer and former prosecutor.
Randall D. Eliason, a law professor who formerly ran the public corruption section of the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said Fitzgerald is clearly "looking at new defendants or new charges." That is not good news for anybody concerned about their role in Plame's identity being leaked, Eliason added.
For nearly two years, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked classified information -- Plame's identity as a CIA operative -- to the news media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name was revealed in Novak's column eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Libby, who was forced to resign from Cheney's office, was charged with committing perjury, providing false statements and obstructing justice and has denied wrongdoing. Libby's attorneys have called Woodward's disclosure a "bombshell" that could bolster Libby's defense.
In anticipation of a lengthy and expensive court fight, a number of Republican former senators, former ambassadors and fundraisers are planning to raise $250,000 each and a total of $5 million for Libby's legal fund, according to people familiar with the plan. In a private conversation earlier this week, Republicans such as former ambassadors Melvin Sembler and Howard Leach promised to raise at least $250,000. Former senators Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and Alan K. Simpson (Wyo.) and former congressman Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.) are also part of the fundraising campaign, the sources said.
"Good lawyers are expensive," said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the Libby legal team. A few Democrats, including R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, are also involved.
At the very least, Woodward's disclosure has put the spotlight on someone other than Libby for the moment. In his deposition, Woodward testified that he spoke with Libby twice in late June 2003 and does not recall Libby raising the subject of Plame. Woodward said it is possible he mentioned Plame to Libby because he had included her name on a list of questions he planned to ask, but he testified that he does not recall doing so, according to a statement he released on Tuesday.
Experts said that Fitzgerald is not trying to shore up his case on Libby. Under court rules, Fitzgerald cannot use a new grand jury to gather additional evidence for an indictment he has already brought, or to wrap up unanswered questions in preparation for Libby's trial. He can only call on a grand jury to hear evidence if he is considering new charges against another person or additional charges against Libby.
One mystery for the public -- but not for Fitzgerald -- is the identity of Woodward's source. Woodward said he contacted the source late last month for an article on the CIA leak case and discussed notes showing that the source had mentioned Plame in mid-June 2003. The source then went to Fitzgerald.
The source's situation appears not unlike Rove's. In his initial testimony, Rove did not reveal his conversation about Plame with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. Only after an e-mail surfaced showing that Rove had discussed the issue with Cooper did the top Bush aide tell the grand jury about it. Sources close to Rove said he is under investigation for possibly providing misleading statements about the Cooper conversation.
Lawyers in the case say Woodward's source must not have initially mentioned the 2003 contact with him and told Fitzgerald about it only after talking to Woodward last month.
"None of this would be a news flash if this person had previously been interviewed or testified and had previously disclosed this information to investigators," Barcella said. "You have to assume they didn't disclose this interview with Woodward. Now the prosecutor has to investigate why they didn't."
Barcella said it may be difficult for the source to claim he did not recall talking to Woodward. "But, really, could anybody forget a conversation with the icon?" he asked.
At yesterday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told Libby's attorneys that he had read their recent comments about the Woodward matter in media accounts and urged them to hold their tongues until the trial, to avoid prejudicing future jurors. He said he has never issued a gag order in a case and hopes not to have to do so.
"I do have a very strong proclivity on cases being decided based on evidence presented in trial . . . not in the press," he said. "I assume . . . a word to the wise to be sufficient."
At the hearing, Fitzgerald reached a compromise with Dow Jones and Co. and the Associated Press to ensure that some evidence gathered in the Libby prosecution could be revealed publicly. The two sides agreed that classified material, private personal information and secret grand jury testimony will be kept secret from the public and the news media, but that other information can be revealed in court filings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5111800958.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Re: Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
<font size="5"><center>More Allegations of Libby Lies Revealed</font size>
<font size="4">Judge's Report Shows Cheney Aide Is Accused Of Broad Deception</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 4, 2006; Page A03
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case alleged that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff was engaged in a broader web of deception than was previously known and repeatedly lied to conceal that he had been a key source for reporters about undercover operative Valerie Plame, according to court records released yesterday.
The records also show that by August 2004, early in his investigation of the disclosure of Plame's identity, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald had concluded that he did not have much of a case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for illegally leaking classified information. Instead, Fitzgerald was focused on charging Cheney's top aide with perjury and making false statements, and knew he needed to question reporters to prove it.
The court records show that Libby denied to a grand jury that he ever mentioned Plame or her CIA job to then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer or then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller in separate conversations he had with each of them in early July 2003. The records also suggest that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he first spoke to Miller about Plame in June 2003, and that prosecutors learned of the nature of the conversation only when Miller finally testified late in the fall of 2005.
All three specific allegations are contained in previously redacted sections of a U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that were released yesterday. The opinion analyzed Fitzgerald's secret evidence to determine whether his case warranted ordering reporters to testify about their confidential conversations with sources.
Fitzgerald revealed none of these specifics when he publicly announced Libby's indictment in October on charges of making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice.
The once-sealed portions of the federal court opinion were written in February 2005 by U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel, who was a member of a three-judge panel that agreed with Fitzgerald that the testimony of two reporters, Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, was crucial to his investigation.
Yesterday, the same panel concluded that because Libby was indicted and now faced public charges, the court no longer had to keep secret many of the details of the grand jury investigation that Tatel analyzed. Dow Jones Inc., parent company of the Wall Street Journal, had petitioned the court to release the eight-page Tatel opinion. Three of the pages were redacted.
Attorneys for Libby and Fleischer and a spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment yesterday.
Since January 2004, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior Bush administration officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name and her CIA role were first mentioned publicly in a column by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003, eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.
According to Tatel's summary of the evidence that Fitzgerald presented in the court's chambers in August 2004, the prosecutor had at least a good circumstantial case on perjury but charging Libby with intentionally leaking classified information was "currently off the table," though it could be "viable" if he gained new evidence.
Tatel wrote that interviewing Miller would be crucial to making that decision, because Libby might have mentioned to her that he knew Plame's status was covert. He concluded that simply lying about a national security matter was serious enough to warrant ordering the reporters to testify about their conversations with Libby.
"While it is true that on the current record the special counsel's strongest charges are for perjury and false statements rather than security-related crimes ... perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications," he wrote.
The information gives a fuller picture of the case that Fitzgerald will likely put on against Libby. Yesterday, a federal judge scheduled his trial to start on Jan. 8, 2007.
In public remarks about the indictment, Fitzgerald has accused Libby of lying when he said that he believed he first learned of Plame from NBC reporter Tim Russert and passed along that information strictly as unverified gossip to Miller and Cooper.
Tatel's opinion also includes previously unknown details about testimony by Libby and other officials. For example, Libby acknowledged to investigators that Cheney told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame's CIA role and said she helped send her husband on a mission to Niger to determine whether Iraq was seeking nuclear material from the African nation.
That was soon after a Washington Post article on Wilson's Niger trip appeared. Libby emphasized in his testimony that Cheney only said it "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion."
Fitzgerald also contended that Libby lied to the grand jury when he said he never mentioned Plame or her CIA job to Fleischer when they had lunch on July 7. Fleischer recalled before the grand jury that Libby did mention Plame and said she worked in the "counterproliferation area of the CIA." Fleischer said Libby stressed that "the vice president did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . he was sent by his wife."
Fleischer added that he thought the lunch was "kind of weird" because the normally "closed-lip" Libby was sharing confidences and remarking that the information was "hush-hush" and "on the q.t."
Libby was also asked about two July conversations he had with Miller. He said he never mentioned Wilson's wife to Miller in the first conversation but passed along some information another reporter told him about Plame in the second, according to the documents.
Miller testified last year, however, that she thought Libby was the first government official to mention Wilson's wife to her and that he did so in three conversations: on June 23, when she visited his office in the Executive Office Building, and on July 8 and 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6020302095.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>More Allegations of Libby Lies Revealed</font size>
<font size="4">Judge's Report Shows Cheney Aide Is Accused Of Broad Deception</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 4, 2006; Page A03
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak case alleged that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff was engaged in a broader web of deception than was previously known and repeatedly lied to conceal that he had been a key source for reporters about undercover operative Valerie Plame, according to court records released yesterday.
The records also show that by August 2004, early in his investigation of the disclosure of Plame's identity, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald had concluded that he did not have much of a case against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for illegally leaking classified information. Instead, Fitzgerald was focused on charging Cheney's top aide with perjury and making false statements, and knew he needed to question reporters to prove it.
The court records show that Libby denied to a grand jury that he ever mentioned Plame or her CIA job to then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer or then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller in separate conversations he had with each of them in early July 2003. The records also suggest that Libby did not disclose to investigators that he first spoke to Miller about Plame in June 2003, and that prosecutors learned of the nature of the conversation only when Miller finally testified late in the fall of 2005.
All three specific allegations are contained in previously redacted sections of a U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that were released yesterday. The opinion analyzed Fitzgerald's secret evidence to determine whether his case warranted ordering reporters to testify about their confidential conversations with sources.
Fitzgerald revealed none of these specifics when he publicly announced Libby's indictment in October on charges of making false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice.
The once-sealed portions of the federal court opinion were written in February 2005 by U.S. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel, who was a member of a three-judge panel that agreed with Fitzgerald that the testimony of two reporters, Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, was crucial to his investigation.
Yesterday, the same panel concluded that because Libby was indicted and now faced public charges, the court no longer had to keep secret many of the details of the grand jury investigation that Tatel analyzed. Dow Jones Inc., parent company of the Wall Street Journal, had petitioned the court to release the eight-page Tatel opinion. Three of the pages were redacted.
Attorneys for Libby and Fleischer and a spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment yesterday.
Since January 2004, Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior Bush administration officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Plame's name and her CIA role were first mentioned publicly in a column by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak on July 14, 2003, eight days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.
According to Tatel's summary of the evidence that Fitzgerald presented in the court's chambers in August 2004, the prosecutor had at least a good circumstantial case on perjury but charging Libby with intentionally leaking classified information was "currently off the table," though it could be "viable" if he gained new evidence.
Tatel wrote that interviewing Miller would be crucial to making that decision, because Libby might have mentioned to her that he knew Plame's status was covert. He concluded that simply lying about a national security matter was serious enough to warrant ordering the reporters to testify about their conversations with Libby.
"While it is true that on the current record the special counsel's strongest charges are for perjury and false statements rather than security-related crimes ... perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications," he wrote.
The information gives a fuller picture of the case that Fitzgerald will likely put on against Libby. Yesterday, a federal judge scheduled his trial to start on Jan. 8, 2007.
In public remarks about the indictment, Fitzgerald has accused Libby of lying when he said that he believed he first learned of Plame from NBC reporter Tim Russert and passed along that information strictly as unverified gossip to Miller and Cooper.
Tatel's opinion also includes previously unknown details about testimony by Libby and other officials. For example, Libby acknowledged to investigators that Cheney told him in mid-June 2003 about Plame's CIA role and said she helped send her husband on a mission to Niger to determine whether Iraq was seeking nuclear material from the African nation.
That was soon after a Washington Post article on Wilson's Niger trip appeared. Libby emphasized in his testimony that Cheney only said it "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion."
Fitzgerald also contended that Libby lied to the grand jury when he said he never mentioned Plame or her CIA job to Fleischer when they had lunch on July 7. Fleischer recalled before the grand jury that Libby did mention Plame and said she worked in the "counterproliferation area of the CIA." Fleischer said Libby stressed that "the vice president did not send Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . the CIA sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger . . . he was sent by his wife."
Fleischer added that he thought the lunch was "kind of weird" because the normally "closed-lip" Libby was sharing confidences and remarking that the information was "hush-hush" and "on the q.t."
Libby was also asked about two July conversations he had with Miller. He said he never mentioned Wilson's wife to Miller in the first conversation but passed along some information another reporter told him about Plame in the second, according to the documents.
Miller testified last year, however, that she thought Libby was the first government official to mention Wilson's wife to her and that he did so in three conversations: on June 23, when she visited his office in the Executive Office Building, and on July 8 and 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6020302095.html?referrer=email&referrer=email
Re: Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
<font size="5"><center>Libby Says 'Superiors' Authorized Leaks</font size>
<font size="4">Cheney's former aide told a jury that classified information
he gave to journalists was OKd.</font size></center>
Los Angeles Times
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
February 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — Former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has told a federal grand jury that his "superiors" authorized him to leak highly sensitive intelligence to journalists, including a New York Times reporter he allegedly tipped off to the name of an undercover CIA operative.
The revelation is contained in a Jan. 23 letter from Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald to lawyers for Libby, who was indicted in late October in connection with the leak of the operative's name. In the letter, Fitzgerald recounts testimony in which Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff admitted circulating portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in June and July 2003.
"It is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the [National Intelligence Estimate] to the press by his superiors," Fitzgerald wrote.
The letter did not identify those superiors. The National Journal reported on its website Thursday that Cheney, who was Libby's direct boss at the time, had authorized the disclosures.
The revelation that leaks were authorized comes as the Bush administration has been quick to condemn others for failing to safeguard secrets since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Cheney has been among the most aggressive in lashing out against what officials have described as unauthorized leaks that have gravely hurt the country.
In a speech Thursday evening at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Cheney made no reference to the report of Libby's testimony.
But he renewed his sharp criticism of the leak that led to December reports in the New York Times that the National Security Agency was monitoring communications, without court warrants, between people in the U.S. and suspected Al Qaeda operatives outside the country.
"The terrorist surveillance program was highly classified, and information about it was improperly given to the news media," the vice president said.
Noting that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales had appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Cheney added: "As the attorney general pointed out this week, it's easy to imagine America's enemies shaking their heads in amazement that anyone would disclose this information, thereby giving notice to those enemies and [endangering] national security, putting our citizens at risk. But that is what happened."
The surveillance program, he said, has helped prevent attacks and "remains essential" to U.S. security.
Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's press secretary, referred questions about the Libby letter to Fitzgerald's office. She declined to discuss whether Cheney had been involved with the leaks, saying only, "We continue to cooperate fully with the investigation." A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment.
In late December, the Justice Department launched an aggressive leak investigation into media reports about the domestic surveillance program. In another case, the CIA is believed to have asked Justice Department officials to probe the sources of a Washington Post report last year that the agency was operating a secret prison system for terrorist suspects in Europe.
The National Intelligence Estimates are reports that are meant to convey a consensus view in the intelligence community on issues confronting policymakers. Portions of the documents are sometimes made public.
Fitzgerald's letter did not specify which National Intelligence Estimate Libby shared with reporters or whether it was classified, and Fitzgerald has not charged Libby with disclosing classified information. Fitzgerald said in the letter that he intended to introduce the testimony at Libby's trial, set for January 2007, as part of establishing a "narrative of the events" rather than to show that a crime was committed.
Fitzgerald wrote in the correspondence, which was part of a defense motion filed Jan. 31, that Libby had testified that he caused at least one other government official to discuss an intelligence estimate with reporters in July 2003.
One such report, produced in October 2002, was a foundation of the administration's flawed case for going to war in Iraq. It asserted that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding his nuclear program. Cheney was among the most ardent administration proponents of that viewpoint, although a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee subsequently found that none of the claims were backed up by evidence.
Libby, 55, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. Prosecutors contend that he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The unmasking of Plame, in a July 2003 article by columnist Robert Novak, has been linked to the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq. In 2002, at the request of the CIA, Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Niger to investigate allegations that Hussein had sought to purchase uranium there. In a New York Times op-ed article published eight days before Novak's column appeared, Wilson accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
Wilson's concerns, which had surfaced anonymously earlier that spring, were a source of frustration and irritation for Cheney and other officials.
Libby and Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, have acknowledged speaking with reporters about Plame in the days before Novak's column was published. Libby testified that he first learned of Plame's identity from Tim Russert of NBC News, but Fitzgerald charged that the former aide had lied and that he had learned her identity independently and spread it around. Among the people who told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA was Cheney, the indictment of Libby alleges.
Fitzgerald said in his Jan. 23 letter that Libby testified that he met with Judith Miller of the New York Times on July 8, 2003, to transmit information about the intelligence estimate. Fitzgerald has separately alleged that at the same interview, Libby advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her interviews with Libby, has written that Fitzgerald asked her whether Libby had indicated that Cheney had authorized the conversations or was even aware of them.
"The answer was no," Miller wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...0,0,6491830.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
<font size="5"><center>Libby Says 'Superiors' Authorized Leaks</font size>
<font size="4">Cheney's former aide told a jury that classified information
he gave to journalists was OKd.</font size></center>
Los Angeles Times
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
February 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — Former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has told a federal grand jury that his "superiors" authorized him to leak highly sensitive intelligence to journalists, including a New York Times reporter he allegedly tipped off to the name of an undercover CIA operative.
The revelation is contained in a Jan. 23 letter from Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald to lawyers for Libby, who was indicted in late October in connection with the leak of the operative's name. In the letter, Fitzgerald recounts testimony in which Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff admitted circulating portions of the National Intelligence Estimate to reporters in June and July 2003.
"It is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the [National Intelligence Estimate] to the press by his superiors," Fitzgerald wrote.
The letter did not identify those superiors. The National Journal reported on its website Thursday that Cheney, who was Libby's direct boss at the time, had authorized the disclosures.
The revelation that leaks were authorized comes as the Bush administration has been quick to condemn others for failing to safeguard secrets since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Cheney has been among the most aggressive in lashing out against what officials have described as unauthorized leaks that have gravely hurt the country.
In a speech Thursday evening at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Cheney made no reference to the report of Libby's testimony.
But he renewed his sharp criticism of the leak that led to December reports in the New York Times that the National Security Agency was monitoring communications, without court warrants, between people in the U.S. and suspected Al Qaeda operatives outside the country.
"The terrorist surveillance program was highly classified, and information about it was improperly given to the news media," the vice president said.
Noting that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales had appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Cheney added: "As the attorney general pointed out this week, it's easy to imagine America's enemies shaking their heads in amazement that anyone would disclose this information, thereby giving notice to those enemies and [endangering] national security, putting our citizens at risk. But that is what happened."
The surveillance program, he said, has helped prevent attacks and "remains essential" to U.S. security.
Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's press secretary, referred questions about the Libby letter to Fitzgerald's office. She declined to discuss whether Cheney had been involved with the leaks, saying only, "We continue to cooperate fully with the investigation." A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment.
In late December, the Justice Department launched an aggressive leak investigation into media reports about the domestic surveillance program. In another case, the CIA is believed to have asked Justice Department officials to probe the sources of a Washington Post report last year that the agency was operating a secret prison system for terrorist suspects in Europe.
The National Intelligence Estimates are reports that are meant to convey a consensus view in the intelligence community on issues confronting policymakers. Portions of the documents are sometimes made public.
Fitzgerald's letter did not specify which National Intelligence Estimate Libby shared with reporters or whether it was classified, and Fitzgerald has not charged Libby with disclosing classified information. Fitzgerald said in the letter that he intended to introduce the testimony at Libby's trial, set for January 2007, as part of establishing a "narrative of the events" rather than to show that a crime was committed.
Fitzgerald wrote in the correspondence, which was part of a defense motion filed Jan. 31, that Libby had testified that he caused at least one other government official to discuss an intelligence estimate with reporters in July 2003.
One such report, produced in October 2002, was a foundation of the administration's flawed case for going to war in Iraq. It asserted that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding his nuclear program. Cheney was among the most ardent administration proponents of that viewpoint, although a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee subsequently found that none of the claims were backed up by evidence.
Libby, 55, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. Prosecutors contend that he lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about how he learned the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
The unmasking of Plame, in a July 2003 article by columnist Robert Novak, has been linked to the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq. In 2002, at the request of the CIA, Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Niger to investigate allegations that Hussein had sought to purchase uranium there. In a New York Times op-ed article published eight days before Novak's column appeared, Wilson accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.
Wilson's concerns, which had surfaced anonymously earlier that spring, were a source of frustration and irritation for Cheney and other officials.
Libby and Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, have acknowledged speaking with reporters about Plame in the days before Novak's column was published. Libby testified that he first learned of Plame's identity from Tim Russert of NBC News, but Fitzgerald charged that the former aide had lied and that he had learned her identity independently and spread it around. Among the people who told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA was Cheney, the indictment of Libby alleges.
Fitzgerald said in his Jan. 23 letter that Libby testified that he met with Judith Miller of the New York Times on July 8, 2003, to transmit information about the intelligence estimate. Fitzgerald has separately alleged that at the same interview, Libby advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her interviews with Libby, has written that Fitzgerald asked her whether Libby had indicated that Cheney had authorized the conversations or was even aware of them.
"The answer was no," Miller wrote.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...0,0,6491830.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
Re: Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
<font size="5"><center>The Libby Trial: Cheney's Office Takes the Stand</font size></center>
Time Magazine
Posted 01/25/2007 @ 6:02pm
On Thursday, the Vice President's office was on the stand in the Scooter Libby trial-sort of. The fourth witness to be called by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was Cathie Martin, who during the CIA leak scandal, was Dick Cheney's senior public affairs aide. Currently deputy director of communications and planning at the White House, Martin was a poised and confident witness; she was hardly looking to help the prosecution nail her former colleague. Yet she testified that she had told Libby that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA weeks before that information was leaked--reinforcing Fitzgerald's accusation that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury when he claimed that he possessed no direct knowledge of Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment at the time of the leak.
Martin described a conversation she had with William Harlow, the CIA public affairs chief, and though she had no direct recollection of when this phone call happened, she noted it likely occurred around June 11, 2003. At that time, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post was asking Vice President Cheney's office whether it had been involved in former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger (which had been cited in a May 6 New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof that did not name Wilson). Martin testified that as the result of a call between Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, and a CIA official (probably Robert Grenier, an earlier witness in the trial), she had been put in contact with Harlow.
During her conversation with Harlow, Martin testified, she asked him what the CIA knew about the trip to Niger taken by the then-unnamed ambassador. Harlow told her the former diplomat was Joseph Wilson and revealed that his wife worked at the CIA. Later that same day, in the vice president's office, she shared with Cheney and Libby what Harlow had told her, including the information that Wilson's wife was employed at the CIA. How did Cheney or Libby respond to this? Fitzgerald asked Martin. "I don't remember any other specific response," she answered.
The significance of this? Fitzgerald had shown once again that Libby was making efforts to gather information on the Wilson trip when little was publicly known about it. As a result of this effort, he was told by Martin that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Ted Wells, a Libby lawyer, tried to depict Martin's report to Cheney and Libby as nothing but an easy-to-forget ten-second snippet. But Martin also testified that Libby was intensely engaged in a campaign to rebut Joseph Wilson's charge that the Bush administration had rigged the case for war by misrepresenting the prewar intelligence--and that Libby had even requested to see transcripts of cable news shows covering the controversy (particularly Chris Matthews' Hardball program). Consequently, a juror could well conclude that information regarding Valerie Wilson's CIA employment was important to Libby and registered with him.
Under cross-examination from Wells, Martin did say that in her many conversations with Libby and Cheney in June and July 2003 about the Wilson imbroglio, only once was Valerie Wilson mentioned--when she shared the information from Harlow with the vice president and his chief of staff.
Wells--and Martin--helped Libby on a different front. During her initial testimony, Fitzgerald asked her about a phone conversation between Libby and Matt Cooper of Time on July 12, 2003. Cooper has said that during this call Libby confirmed for him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. (That would be leaking classified information.) Libby has told investigators that all he said to Cooper was that he (Libby) had heard that other reporters were saying this about Valerie Wilson. Martin was a witness to Libby's side of the call. Did she, Fitzgerald asked, hear Libby tell Cooper that other journalists were talking about Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection? No, said Martin. That seemed a blow for the defense. But then Wells asked if she had received a phone call while Libby had been talking to Cooper. Yes, she replied. And that meant Martin had not overheard the entire Libby-Cooper conversation. Fitzgerald's blow was undone.
Earlier in the day, Wells explicitly previewed a defense attack that he had only previously hinted at. It came during an attempt to impeach the credibility of Craig Schmall, Libby's onetime CIA briefer, who testified on Wednesday that Libby had mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson during a June 14, 2003 briefing. Wells tried to persuade Judge Reggie Walton to allow him to read from a classified document the various matters that Schmall had briefed Libby about that day. Schmall (who briefed Libby and/or Cheney several times a week) had testified he could not recall any of the specifics of that particular briefing, and Wells wanted to suggest that this assertion was not believable. He then could argue that nothing Schmall had told the jury should be accepted--including Schmall's statement that he had written down a reference to Libby's remark about the Wilsons on that morning's briefing. (The page with the handwritten note was entered into evidence.)
Wells told the judge--with the jury out of the room--that he wanted to "paint a picture that [Schmall] should not be believed." But he was not out to discredit just one witness. He claimed that in this case "there is tension between the CIA and the White House and that there "are biases and motivations so that these witnesses from the CIA cannot be believed." In other words, the CIA was--and is--out to get Libby. The judge turned down his request to disclose the contents of the briefing.
Cathie Martin will be back on the stand on Monday. (For the duration of the trial, Fridays are days off.) After she is done, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary, is scheduled to take the stand. According to Fitzgerald's opening argument, Fleischer leaked Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to NBC News' David Gregory--and did so after obtaining information on Valerie Wilson from both Libby and White House communications director Dan Bartlett. (Gregory did not report that information.) Neither Fleischer, Bartlett, nor Gregory have commented on this new disclosure. Fleischer--who demanded and received immunity from Fitzgerald--could be trouble for Libby and also the White House.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=160544
<font size="5"><center>The Libby Trial: Cheney's Office Takes the Stand</font size></center>
Time Magazine
Posted 01/25/2007 @ 6:02pm
On Thursday, the Vice President's office was on the stand in the Scooter Libby trial-sort of. The fourth witness to be called by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was Cathie Martin, who during the CIA leak scandal, was Dick Cheney's senior public affairs aide. Currently deputy director of communications and planning at the White House, Martin was a poised and confident witness; she was hardly looking to help the prosecution nail her former colleague. Yet she testified that she had told Libby that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA weeks before that information was leaked--reinforcing Fitzgerald's accusation that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury when he claimed that he possessed no direct knowledge of Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment at the time of the leak.
Martin described a conversation she had with William Harlow, the CIA public affairs chief, and though she had no direct recollection of when this phone call happened, she noted it likely occurred around June 11, 2003. At that time, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post was asking Vice President Cheney's office whether it had been involved in former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger (which had been cited in a May 6 New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof that did not name Wilson). Martin testified that as the result of a call between Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, and a CIA official (probably Robert Grenier, an earlier witness in the trial), she had been put in contact with Harlow.
During her conversation with Harlow, Martin testified, she asked him what the CIA knew about the trip to Niger taken by the then-unnamed ambassador. Harlow told her the former diplomat was Joseph Wilson and revealed that his wife worked at the CIA. Later that same day, in the vice president's office, she shared with Cheney and Libby what Harlow had told her, including the information that Wilson's wife was employed at the CIA. How did Cheney or Libby respond to this? Fitzgerald asked Martin. "I don't remember any other specific response," she answered.
The significance of this? Fitzgerald had shown once again that Libby was making efforts to gather information on the Wilson trip when little was publicly known about it. As a result of this effort, he was told by Martin that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Ted Wells, a Libby lawyer, tried to depict Martin's report to Cheney and Libby as nothing but an easy-to-forget ten-second snippet. But Martin also testified that Libby was intensely engaged in a campaign to rebut Joseph Wilson's charge that the Bush administration had rigged the case for war by misrepresenting the prewar intelligence--and that Libby had even requested to see transcripts of cable news shows covering the controversy (particularly Chris Matthews' Hardball program). Consequently, a juror could well conclude that information regarding Valerie Wilson's CIA employment was important to Libby and registered with him.
Under cross-examination from Wells, Martin did say that in her many conversations with Libby and Cheney in June and July 2003 about the Wilson imbroglio, only once was Valerie Wilson mentioned--when she shared the information from Harlow with the vice president and his chief of staff.
Wells--and Martin--helped Libby on a different front. During her initial testimony, Fitzgerald asked her about a phone conversation between Libby and Matt Cooper of Time on July 12, 2003. Cooper has said that during this call Libby confirmed for him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. (That would be leaking classified information.) Libby has told investigators that all he said to Cooper was that he (Libby) had heard that other reporters were saying this about Valerie Wilson. Martin was a witness to Libby's side of the call. Did she, Fitzgerald asked, hear Libby tell Cooper that other journalists were talking about Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection? No, said Martin. That seemed a blow for the defense. But then Wells asked if she had received a phone call while Libby had been talking to Cooper. Yes, she replied. And that meant Martin had not overheard the entire Libby-Cooper conversation. Fitzgerald's blow was undone.
Earlier in the day, Wells explicitly previewed a defense attack that he had only previously hinted at. It came during an attempt to impeach the credibility of Craig Schmall, Libby's onetime CIA briefer, who testified on Wednesday that Libby had mentioned Joseph and Valerie Wilson during a June 14, 2003 briefing. Wells tried to persuade Judge Reggie Walton to allow him to read from a classified document the various matters that Schmall had briefed Libby about that day. Schmall (who briefed Libby and/or Cheney several times a week) had testified he could not recall any of the specifics of that particular briefing, and Wells wanted to suggest that this assertion was not believable. He then could argue that nothing Schmall had told the jury should be accepted--including Schmall's statement that he had written down a reference to Libby's remark about the Wilsons on that morning's briefing. (The page with the handwritten note was entered into evidence.)
Wells told the judge--with the jury out of the room--that he wanted to "paint a picture that [Schmall] should not be believed." But he was not out to discredit just one witness. He claimed that in this case "there is tension between the CIA and the White House and that there "are biases and motivations so that these witnesses from the CIA cannot be believed." In other words, the CIA was--and is--out to get Libby. The judge turned down his request to disclose the contents of the briefing.
Cathie Martin will be back on the stand on Monday. (For the duration of the trial, Fridays are days off.) After she is done, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary, is scheduled to take the stand. According to Fitzgerald's opening argument, Fleischer leaked Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to NBC News' David Gregory--and did so after obtaining information on Valerie Wilson from both Libby and White House communications director Dan Bartlett. (Gregory did not report that information.) Neither Fleischer, Bartlett, nor Gregory have commented on this new disclosure. Fleischer--who demanded and received immunity from Fitzgerald--could be trouble for Libby and also the White House.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=160544
Re: Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge
<font size="5"><center>In Ex-Aide's Testimony, A Spin Through VP's PR</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A01
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
It is unclear whether the first week of the trial will help or hurt Libby or the administration. But the trial has already pulled back the curtain on the White House's PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president's Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.
With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday."
Martin, perhaps unaware of the suspicion such machinations caused in the press corps, lamented that her statements at the time were not regarded as credible. She testified that, as the controversy swelled in 2004, reporters ignored her denials and continued to report that it was Cheney's office that sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate allegations of Iraq's nuclear acquisitions. "They're not taking my word for it," Martin recalled telling a colleague.
Martin, who now works on the president's communications staff, said she was frustrated that reporters wouldn't call for comment about the controversy. She said she had to ask the CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, which reporters were working on the story. "Often, reporters would stop calling us," she testified.
This prompted quiet chuckles among the two dozen reporters sitting in court to cover the trial. Whispered one: "When was the last time you called the vice president's office and got anything other than a 'no comment'?"
At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush's State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.
After "delicate" talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA "approved" the claim and "I am responsible" -- but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that "we did not express any doubt about Niger."
During her testimony, Martin, a Harvard Law School graduate married to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and a close pal of Bush counselor Dan Bartlett, seemed uncomfortable, shifting in her chair, squinting at her interrogators, stealing quick glances at the jury, and repeatedly touching her cheek, ear, nose, lips and scalp.
Martin shed light on the mystery of why White House press secretary Scott McClellan promised, falsely, that Libby was not involved in outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. After McClellan had vouched for Bush strategist Karl Rove's innocence, Libby asked Martin, "Why don't they say something about me?"
"You need to talk to Scott," Martin advised.
On jurors' monitors were images of Martin's talking points, some labeled "on the record" and others "deep background." She walked the jurors through how the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others. To deal with the Wilson controversy, she hastily arranged a Cheney lunch with conservative commentators. And when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof first wrote about the Niger affair, she explained, "we didn't see any urgency to get to Kristof" because "he frankly attacked the administration fairly regularly."
Questioned by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Martin described how Hadley tried to shield White House spokesmen from the Niger controversy. "Everybody was sort of in the dark," she explained. "There had been a decision not to have the communicators involved."
But Martin, encouraged by Libby, secretly advised Libby and Cheney on how to respond. She put "Meet the Press" at the top of her list of "Options" but noted that it might appear "too defensive." Next, she proposed "leak to Sanger-Pincus-newsmags. Sit down and give to him." This meant that the "no-leak" White House would give the story to the New York Times' David Sanger, The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, or Time or Newsweek. Option 3: "Press conference -- Condi/Rumsfeld." Option 4: "Op-ed."
Martin was embarrassed about the "leak" option; the case, after all, is about a leak. "It's a term of art," she said. "If you give it to one reporter, they're likelier to write the story."
For all the elaborate press management, things didn't always go according to plan. Martin described how Time wound up with an exclusive one weekend because she didn't have a phone number for anybody at Newsweek.
"You didn't have a lot of hands-on experience dealing with the press?" defense attorney Theodore Wells asked.
"Correct," Martin replied. After further questions, she added: "Few of us in the White House had had hands-on experience with any crisis like this."
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html?referrer=email
<font size="5"><center>In Ex-Aide's Testimony, A Spin Through VP's PR</font size></center>
Washington Post
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A01
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
It is unclear whether the first week of the trial will help or hurt Libby or the administration. But the trial has already pulled back the curtain on the White House's PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president's Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.
With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday."
Martin, perhaps unaware of the suspicion such machinations caused in the press corps, lamented that her statements at the time were not regarded as credible. She testified that, as the controversy swelled in 2004, reporters ignored her denials and continued to report that it was Cheney's office that sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate allegations of Iraq's nuclear acquisitions. "They're not taking my word for it," Martin recalled telling a colleague.
Martin, who now works on the president's communications staff, said she was frustrated that reporters wouldn't call for comment about the controversy. She said she had to ask the CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, which reporters were working on the story. "Often, reporters would stop calling us," she testified.
This prompted quiet chuckles among the two dozen reporters sitting in court to cover the trial. Whispered one: "When was the last time you called the vice president's office and got anything other than a 'no comment'?"
At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush's State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.
After "delicate" talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA "approved" the claim and "I am responsible" -- but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that "we did not express any doubt about Niger."
During her testimony, Martin, a Harvard Law School graduate married to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and a close pal of Bush counselor Dan Bartlett, seemed uncomfortable, shifting in her chair, squinting at her interrogators, stealing quick glances at the jury, and repeatedly touching her cheek, ear, nose, lips and scalp.
Martin shed light on the mystery of why White House press secretary Scott McClellan promised, falsely, that Libby was not involved in outing CIA operative Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife. After McClellan had vouched for Bush strategist Karl Rove's innocence, Libby asked Martin, "Why don't they say something about me?"
"You need to talk to Scott," Martin advised.
On jurors' monitors were images of Martin's talking points, some labeled "on the record" and others "deep background." She walked the jurors through how the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others. To deal with the Wilson controversy, she hastily arranged a Cheney lunch with conservative commentators. And when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof first wrote about the Niger affair, she explained, "we didn't see any urgency to get to Kristof" because "he frankly attacked the administration fairly regularly."
Questioned by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Martin described how Hadley tried to shield White House spokesmen from the Niger controversy. "Everybody was sort of in the dark," she explained. "There had been a decision not to have the communicators involved."
But Martin, encouraged by Libby, secretly advised Libby and Cheney on how to respond. She put "Meet the Press" at the top of her list of "Options" but noted that it might appear "too defensive." Next, she proposed "leak to Sanger-Pincus-newsmags. Sit down and give to him." This meant that the "no-leak" White House would give the story to the New York Times' David Sanger, The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, or Time or Newsweek. Option 3: "Press conference -- Condi/Rumsfeld." Option 4: "Op-ed."
Martin was embarrassed about the "leak" option; the case, after all, is about a leak. "It's a term of art," she said. "If you give it to one reporter, they're likelier to write the story."
For all the elaborate press management, things didn't always go according to plan. Martin described how Time wound up with an exclusive one weekend because she didn't have a phone number for anybody at Newsweek.
"You didn't have a lot of hands-on experience dealing with the press?" defense attorney Theodore Wells asked.
"Correct," Martin replied. After further questions, she added: "Few of us in the White House had had hands-on experience with any crisis like this."
Staff writer Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html?referrer=email
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
Peeps, don't get fooled by the "Three-Card-Monte" strategy that the <font color="#FF0000"><b>sycophantic 'mainstream media'</b></font> is utilizing during this Libby trial. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that the bush-Cheney White House efforts to destroy his investigation were analogous to<font color="#0000FF"><b> 'throwing dirt in the eyes of an umpire' </b></font>; this term also properly characterizes most media coverage of this trial.
The "mainstream-media" is too focused on the celebrity of who's testifying, how they were attired and whether they looked nervous rather than explaining the core issues of this trial to the American people. Sad to say, they did a better job covering the OJ Simpson trail. The ratings $$$$ bonanza that trial produced, and the 'juicy' subject matter (celebrity murder) partly explains the woeful coverage of the Libby trial.
The best consistent reporting I've seen about bush-Cheney-Libby-Plame has been Murray Waas at National Journal (http://nationaljournal.com)
His latest article is below followed by his previous articles
<font color="#ff0000"><b>CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury-Jan. 12th 2007</b></font>
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj1.htm
This specific indictment this trial is about is Libby lying (perjury).
The broader and more critical substance of this trial is the hideous reality that the bush-Cheney White House destroyed a clandestine CIA <b><font color="#FF0000">Non-official cover (NOC)</font></b> operation for partisan (Bush Crime Family) political and financial gain. Plame's CIA NOC operation 'Brewster Jennings" was involved in tracking the distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear technology to and from Iran.
<font color="#FF0000"><b>Read This Article</b></font>
<a target="_blank" href="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/HB-Plame-Shuster-Iran.wmv">
<font color="#ff0000"><b>Watch The NBC Video</b></font></a>
The perpetual effort by the <font color="#FF0000"><b>RepubliKlan echo chamber</b></font>, at the behest of the White House, <div align="right"><table border="3" width="325" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" height="600" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" bgcolor="#000000" bordercolordark="#0000FF" align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td height="308"><Embed src="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/GHWBush.wmv" "AUTOSTART=false" align="center" "Name=MediaPlayer" "ShowControls=1" "ShowDisplay=0" "ShowStatusBar=0" "width=320" "height=285"></embed></td></tr><tr> <td height="274" width="301"><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#FFFFFF"><b>I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”<br><br><font size="3"><i>- President George H.W. Bush, former Director of the CIA, in remarks at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, on April 26, 1999</i></b></font></font></td></tr></table></div>to deny the reality that Valerie Plame was a NOC, and that her work was critical is an attempt to mitigate the seriousness of bush-Cheney's apparent crime. As no greater an authority than George H. W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the eponymously named CIA building about CIA leakers "They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
So now the focus of both the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Libby's defense lawyer <div align="left"
<table border="3" width="150" cellpadding="2" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" bordercolordark="#0000FF" bgcolor="#000000" height="200" align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td><img src="http://www.appellatedefender.org/images/well.small.jpg "><br><font face="Arial" size="2" color="#FFFFFF"><b>Theodore V. Wells</b></font></td></tr></table></div>Theodore V. Wells, Jr. is pointed like a double barrel shotgun at the correct target -the office of the Vice President of the United States, the Vice-President himself & his so-called boss the President of the United States.
Given the sworn testimony so far (as of Feb. 2nd 2007), all witnesses including <font color="#FF0000"><b>Cheney's personal pit-bull lawyer David Addington</b></font> ,have testified that ALL roads lead directly to Dick Cheney giving the order to blow an important CIA NOC operation. Cheney's hand written notes below certify that bush knew also. The likely prospect of bush pardoning whoever is found guilty at this trial almost makes this unraveling of RepubliKlan Bull-Shit moot ; but not quite. <div align="right"><!--MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/05/cheneybush.jpg" align="right" width="180" height="208"></div>
The trial serves the useful purpose of dramatically and finally ripping down what remains of the bush-Cheney-RepubliKlan canard , that their so-called "fighting-terrorism" policy has anything to do with fighting-terrorism. All can now see that the "critics" have been right all along. This camarilla is nothing more than "The Bush Crime Family". Cheney's testimony at this trial should be 'interesting'.
<br><br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr><p>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Cheney's Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair</font><p>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.word.jpg"><br>
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000ff">Cheney's hand written note contained a reference to <font color="#ff0000"><b>"this Pres."</b></font> was an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege.</font>
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/10/cheney_trial/story.jpg" align="right" width="200" height="236"></div>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><br>
<b>January 31st 2007
by Marc Ash and Jason Leopold</b>
Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by attorneys prosecuting former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.
Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.
But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?
Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.
Last week, Libby's attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning pronouncement during opening statements of Libby's trial. He claimed that the White House had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove - Bush's political adviser and "right-hand man."
"Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the United States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to the vice president, 'I think the White House ... is trying to set me up. People in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'" said Wells.
Cheney's notes seem to help bolster Wells's defense strategy. Libby's defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening statements last week. Wells said Cheney had written "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others": a reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.
However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this Pres." instead of "that was."
During cross-examination Tuesday morning, David Addington was asked specific questions about Cheney's notes and the reference to President Bush. Addington, former counsel to the vice president, was named Cheney's chief of staff - a position Libby had held before resigning.
"Can you make out what's crossed out, Mr. Addington?" Wells asked, according to a copy of the transcript of Tuesday's court proceedings.
"It says 'the guy' and then it says, 'this Pres.' and then that is scratched through," Addington said.
"OK," Wells said. "Let's start again. 'Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy ...' and then what's scratched through?" Wells asked Addington again, attempting to establish that Cheney had originally written that President Bush personally asked Libby to beat back Wilson's criticisms.
"T-h-i-s space P-r-e-s," Addington said, spelling out the words. "And then it's got a scratch-through."
"So it looks like 'this Pres.?'" Wells asked again.
"Yes sir," Addington said.
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7952/484/1600/535725/cheney_emotional_chart.jpg" border="9" align="right"></div>
Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the document.
The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the Washington press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells said, was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak and the attacks on Wilson are well documented.
Furthermore, Cheney, in his directive to McClellan that day in September 2003, wrote that the White House spokesman needed to immediately "call out to key press saying the same thing about Scooter as Karl."
McClellan had publicly stated in September 2003 that Rove was not culpable in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity, nor was he involved in a campaign to discredit her husband, but McClellan did not say anything to the media that exonerated Libby, which led Cheney to write the note. A couple of weeks later, in October 2003, McClellan told members of the media that it was "ridiculous" for them to suggest Libby and Rove were involved in the leak, because he received personal assurances from both men that they had nothing to do with it.
Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly] implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the 250 pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.
Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege. Addington told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice Department in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson and Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately recognized the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said he immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry O'Donnell, Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it was turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.
Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important revelation that has emerged from the trial thus far.
Addington revealed during his testimony Monday that in June 2003 there were internal discussions - involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney - about declassifying for specific reporters a portion of the highly classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as a way to counter Wilson's criticisms against the administration. That portion purportedly showed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger to use for building an atomic bomb - a claim that Wilson had debunked when he personally traveled to Niger to investigate it a year earlier.
In late June or early July 2003, "a question was asked of me - by Scooter Libby: Does the president have authority to declassify information?" Addington told jurors Monday, in response to a question by defense attorney William Jeffress. "And the answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's clear the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a national security secret and who can have access to it.'"
President Bush signed an executive order in 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The order was signed on March 23, four days after the start of the Iraq War and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/
-------</font><p>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.graph.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.doc.jpg"><br>
<br><hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>
<p>
Peeps, don't get fooled by the "Three-Card-Monte" strategy that the <font color="#FF0000"><b>sycophantic 'mainstream media'</b></font> is utilizing during this Libby trial. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said that the bush-Cheney White House efforts to destroy his investigation were analogous to<font color="#0000FF"><b> 'throwing dirt in the eyes of an umpire' </b></font>; this term also properly characterizes most media coverage of this trial.
The "mainstream-media" is too focused on the celebrity of who's testifying, how they were attired and whether they looked nervous rather than explaining the core issues of this trial to the American people. Sad to say, they did a better job covering the OJ Simpson trail. The ratings $$$$ bonanza that trial produced, and the 'juicy' subject matter (celebrity murder) partly explains the woeful coverage of the Libby trial.
The best consistent reporting I've seen about bush-Cheney-Libby-Plame has been Murray Waas at National Journal (http://nationaljournal.com)
His latest article is below followed by his previous articles
<font color="#ff0000"><b>CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury-Jan. 12th 2007</b></font>
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0414nj3.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0608nj1.htm
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj1.htm
This specific indictment this trial is about is Libby lying (perjury).
The broader and more critical substance of this trial is the hideous reality that the bush-Cheney White House destroyed a clandestine CIA <b><font color="#FF0000">Non-official cover (NOC)</font></b> operation for partisan (Bush Crime Family) political and financial gain. Plame's CIA NOC operation 'Brewster Jennings" was involved in tracking the distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear technology to and from Iran.
<font color="#FF0000"><b>Read This Article</b></font>
<a target="_blank" href="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/HB-Plame-Shuster-Iran.wmv">
<font color="#ff0000"><b>Watch The NBC Video</b></font></a>
The perpetual effort by the <font color="#FF0000"><b>RepubliKlan echo chamber</b></font>, at the behest of the White House, <div align="right"><table border="3" width="325" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" height="600" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" bgcolor="#000000" bordercolordark="#0000FF" align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td height="308"><Embed src="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/GHWBush.wmv" "AUTOSTART=false" align="center" "Name=MediaPlayer" "ShowControls=1" "ShowDisplay=0" "ShowStatusBar=0" "width=320" "height=285"></embed></td></tr><tr> <td height="274" width="301"><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#FFFFFF"><b>I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”<br><br><font size="3"><i>- President George H.W. Bush, former Director of the CIA, in remarks at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, on April 26, 1999</i></b></font></font></td></tr></table></div>to deny the reality that Valerie Plame was a NOC, and that her work was critical is an attempt to mitigate the seriousness of bush-Cheney's apparent crime. As no greater an authority than George H. W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the eponymously named CIA building about CIA leakers "They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
So now the focus of both the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Libby's defense lawyer <div align="left"
<table border="3" width="150" cellpadding="2" bordercolorlight="#0000FF" bordercolordark="#0000FF" bgcolor="#000000" height="200" align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><tr><td><img src="http://www.appellatedefender.org/images/well.small.jpg "><br><font face="Arial" size="2" color="#FFFFFF"><b>Theodore V. Wells</b></font></td></tr></table></div>Theodore V. Wells, Jr. is pointed like a double barrel shotgun at the correct target -the office of the Vice President of the United States, the Vice-President himself & his so-called boss the President of the United States.
Given the sworn testimony so far (as of Feb. 2nd 2007), all witnesses including <font color="#FF0000"><b>Cheney's personal pit-bull lawyer David Addington</b></font> ,have testified that ALL roads lead directly to Dick Cheney giving the order to blow an important CIA NOC operation. Cheney's hand written notes below certify that bush knew also. The likely prospect of bush pardoning whoever is found guilty at this trial almost makes this unraveling of RepubliKlan Bull-Shit moot ; but not quite. <div align="right"><!--MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/05/cheneybush.jpg" align="right" width="180" height="208"></div>
The trial serves the useful purpose of dramatically and finally ripping down what remains of the bush-Cheney-RepubliKlan canard , that their so-called "fighting-terrorism" policy has anything to do with fighting-terrorism. All can now see that the "critics" have been right all along. This camarilla is nothing more than "The Bush Crime Family". Cheney's testimony at this trial should be 'interesting'.
<br><br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr><p>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Cheney's Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair</font><p>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.word.jpg"><br>
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000ff">Cheney's hand written note contained a reference to <font color="#ff0000"><b>"this Pres."</b></font> was an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege.</font>
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/10/cheney_trial/story.jpg" align="right" width="200" height="236"></div>
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><br>
<b>January 31st 2007
by Marc Ash and Jason Leopold</b>
Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced at trial by attorneys prosecuting former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak case.
Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.
But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday during Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA?
Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.
Last week, Libby's attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning pronouncement during opening statements of Libby's trial. He claimed that the White House had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove - Bush's political adviser and "right-hand man."
"Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the United States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to the vice president, 'I think the White House ... is trying to set me up. People in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'" said Wells.
Cheney's notes seem to help bolster Wells's defense strategy. Libby's defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening statements last week. Wells said Cheney had written "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others": a reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.
However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this Pres." instead of "that was."
During cross-examination Tuesday morning, David Addington was asked specific questions about Cheney's notes and the reference to President Bush. Addington, former counsel to the vice president, was named Cheney's chief of staff - a position Libby had held before resigning.
"Can you make out what's crossed out, Mr. Addington?" Wells asked, according to a copy of the transcript of Tuesday's court proceedings.
"It says 'the guy' and then it says, 'this Pres.' and then that is scratched through," Addington said.
"OK," Wells said. "Let's start again. 'Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy ...' and then what's scratched through?" Wells asked Addington again, attempting to establish that Cheney had originally written that President Bush personally asked Libby to beat back Wilson's criticisms.
"T-h-i-s space P-r-e-s," Addington said, spelling out the words. "And then it's got a scratch-through."
"So it looks like 'this Pres.?'" Wells asked again.
"Yes sir," Addington said.
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7952/484/1600/535725/cheney_emotional_chart.jpg" border="9" align="right"></div>
Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the document.
The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the Washington press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells said, was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak and the attacks on Wilson are well documented.
Furthermore, Cheney, in his directive to McClellan that day in September 2003, wrote that the White House spokesman needed to immediately "call out to key press saying the same thing about Scooter as Karl."
McClellan had publicly stated in September 2003 that Rove was not culpable in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity, nor was he involved in a campaign to discredit her husband, but McClellan did not say anything to the media that exonerated Libby, which led Cheney to write the note. A couple of weeks later, in October 2003, McClellan told members of the media that it was "ridiculous" for them to suggest Libby and Rove were involved in the leak, because he received personal assurances from both men that they had nothing to do with it.
Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly] implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the 250 pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.
Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege. Addington told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice Department in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson and Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately recognized the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said he immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry O'Donnell, Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it was turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.
Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for the leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to do with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the case against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush may be the most important revelation that has emerged from the trial thus far.
Addington revealed during his testimony Monday that in June 2003 there were internal discussions - involving President Bush and Vice President Cheney - about declassifying for specific reporters a portion of the highly classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as a way to counter Wilson's criticisms against the administration. That portion purportedly showed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger to use for building an atomic bomb - a claim that Wilson had debunked when he personally traveled to Niger to investigate it a year earlier.
In late June or early July 2003, "a question was asked of me - by Scooter Libby: Does the president have authority to declassify information?" Addington told jurors Monday, in response to a question by defense attorney William Jeffress. "And the answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's clear the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a national security secret and who can have access to it.'"
President Bush signed an executive order in 2003 authorizing Cheney to declassify certain intelligence documents. The order was signed on March 23, four days after the start of the Iraq War and two weeks after Wilson first appeared on the administration's radar.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/
-------</font><p>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.graph.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_02/cheney.notes.doc.jpg"><br>
<br><hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="12"></hr>
<p>
<font size="5"><center>Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House</font size></center>
Feb 11, 1:18 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.
The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.
The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.
Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.
What has emerged, instead, is:
Libby is accused of lying to the FBI and the grand jury about his talks with reporters concerning Plame. Libby got the White House press secretary to deny he was the source of the leak. He says he thought he first heard about Plame's CIA job from NBC's Tim Russert.
But after checking his own notes, he told the FBI and the grand jury Cheney himself told him Plame worked at CIA a month before the talk with Russert, but Libby says he forgot that in the crush of business.
Cheney already was helping manage the administration's response to allegations that it twisted intelligence to bolster its case on Iraq when Wilson's allegation - in a New York Times op-ed piece on July 6, 2003 - came into his cross hairs.
Cheney told Libby to speak with selected reporters to counter bad news. He developed talking points on the matter for the White House press office. He helped draft a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet. He moved to declassify some intelligence material to bolster the case against Wilson.
Cheney even clipped Wilson's column out of the newspapers and scrawled by hand on it: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"
Cheney and Libby discussed the matter multiple times each day, according to Libby's grand jury testimony.
A former Cheney press aide, Cathie Martin, testified she proposed leaking some news exclusives but was kept partly in the dark when Cheney ordered Libby to leak part of a classified intelligence report. Later she arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists with Cheney to help bolster the administration's case.
"What didn't he touch? It's almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch.
"The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions," Light said.
Wilson had written that he had not discovered any evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Wilson also asserted that the administration willfully ignored his findings.
Bush mentioned the unsubstantiated Africa connection in his State of the Union address in 2003. The White House and the CIA disavowed the 16-word assertion shortly after Wilson's criticism appeared in print.
A week after Wilson's article, his wife's CIA employment was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak, who wrote that two administration officials told him she suggested sending the former ambassador on the trip.
The disclosure led to a federal investigation into whether administration officials deliberately leaked her identity. Her job was classified and it is a crime to knowingly disclose classified information to unauthorized recipients.
Libby, 56, is not charged with that. He is charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing a grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Libby is the only one charged in the case.
Cheney was upset by Wilson's suggestion that his trip was done at the vice president's behest and that the vice president had surely heard his conclusions well before Bush repeated the Niger story in his speech.
The CIA later said Wilson's mission was suggested by his wife but authorized by others. The agency said Wilson's fact-finding trip was in response to inquiries made by Cheney's office, the State Department and the Pentagon.
Testifying for the prosecution, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was surprised to find the administration was backing off the 16 words that he had been defending. He said it wasn't the first time he spoke of the administration's position with great certainty, only to find it had changed and nobody had bothered to let him know.
Fleischer acknowledged passing along Plame's identity to two reporters. But he testified he did not know at the time that her CIA job was classified.
According to prosecution testimony, Libby had conversations about Plame's identity with Cheney as well as with a Cheney spokeswoman, a undersecretary of state and two CIA officials before he talked to Russert. In addition, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with them.
Russert, the final witness for the prosecution, flatly denied Libby's assertion that the two had discussed Plame before Novak's column appeared.
On the grand jury tapes, Libby also described steps that Cheney took to use parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities, to rebut Wilson.
Among those not informed about this Cheney maneuver, according to the Libby tapes, were then-White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"What was interesting to me was what appears to be the total involvement of the vice president," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses. "If he's down to micromanaging news leaks and responses at that level, I found that quite astounding."
Meantime, it's become clear that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's work to reporters - Washington Post editor Bob Woodward and then Novak. Armitage says it was a mistake, claiming he didn't know her job was classified.
Ultimately, he, Fleischer and special presidential adviser Karl Rove all have acknowledged talking to reporters about her. According to testimony, at least six reporters were privately told by top administration officials of Plame's connection with the CIA.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070211/D8N7LSB00.html
Feb 11, 1:18 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.
The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.
The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.
Trial testimony so far - including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 - suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.
What has emerged, instead, is:
_a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.
_a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.
_top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.
_a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.
_top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.
Libby is accused of lying to the FBI and the grand jury about his talks with reporters concerning Plame. Libby got the White House press secretary to deny he was the source of the leak. He says he thought he first heard about Plame's CIA job from NBC's Tim Russert.
But after checking his own notes, he told the FBI and the grand jury Cheney himself told him Plame worked at CIA a month before the talk with Russert, but Libby says he forgot that in the crush of business.
Cheney already was helping manage the administration's response to allegations that it twisted intelligence to bolster its case on Iraq when Wilson's allegation - in a New York Times op-ed piece on July 6, 2003 - came into his cross hairs.
Cheney told Libby to speak with selected reporters to counter bad news. He developed talking points on the matter for the White House press office. He helped draft a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet. He moved to declassify some intelligence material to bolster the case against Wilson.
Cheney even clipped Wilson's column out of the newspapers and scrawled by hand on it: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"
Cheney and Libby discussed the matter multiple times each day, according to Libby's grand jury testimony.
A former Cheney press aide, Cathie Martin, testified she proposed leaking some news exclusives but was kept partly in the dark when Cheney ordered Libby to leak part of a classified intelligence report. Later she arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists with Cheney to help bolster the administration's case.
"What didn't he touch? It's almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch.
"The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions," Light said.
Wilson had written that he had not discovered any evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Wilson also asserted that the administration willfully ignored his findings.
Bush mentioned the unsubstantiated Africa connection in his State of the Union address in 2003. The White House and the CIA disavowed the 16-word assertion shortly after Wilson's criticism appeared in print.
A week after Wilson's article, his wife's CIA employment was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak, who wrote that two administration officials told him she suggested sending the former ambassador on the trip.
The disclosure led to a federal investigation into whether administration officials deliberately leaked her identity. Her job was classified and it is a crime to knowingly disclose classified information to unauthorized recipients.
Libby, 56, is not charged with that. He is charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing a grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Libby is the only one charged in the case.
Cheney was upset by Wilson's suggestion that his trip was done at the vice president's behest and that the vice president had surely heard his conclusions well before Bush repeated the Niger story in his speech.
The CIA later said Wilson's mission was suggested by his wife but authorized by others. The agency said Wilson's fact-finding trip was in response to inquiries made by Cheney's office, the State Department and the Pentagon.
Testifying for the prosecution, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was surprised to find the administration was backing off the 16 words that he had been defending. He said it wasn't the first time he spoke of the administration's position with great certainty, only to find it had changed and nobody had bothered to let him know.
Fleischer acknowledged passing along Plame's identity to two reporters. But he testified he did not know at the time that her CIA job was classified.
According to prosecution testimony, Libby had conversations about Plame's identity with Cheney as well as with a Cheney spokeswoman, a undersecretary of state and two CIA officials before he talked to Russert. In addition, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with them.
Russert, the final witness for the prosecution, flatly denied Libby's assertion that the two had discussed Plame before Novak's column appeared.
On the grand jury tapes, Libby also described steps that Cheney took to use parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities, to rebut Wilson.
Among those not informed about this Cheney maneuver, according to the Libby tapes, were then-White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"What was interesting to me was what appears to be the total involvement of the vice president," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses. "If he's down to micromanaging news leaks and responses at that level, I found that quite astounding."
Meantime, it's become clear that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's work to reporters - Washington Post editor Bob Woodward and then Novak. Armitage says it was a mistake, claiming he didn't know her job was classified.
Ultimately, he, Fleischer and special presidential adviser Karl Rove all have acknowledged talking to reporters about her. According to testimony, at least six reporters were privately told by top administration officials of Plame's connection with the CIA.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070211/D8N7LSB00.html
Similar threads
