Fitzy Fizzles

[woodchip]

Well, with the revelation by Bob Woodward that he knew about Plame's CIA status a month before he had a conversation with Libby, now regulates the whole Plame scandel alledgedly involving the Whitehouse as akin to Bush's CBS fabricated National Guard report. As explained by a former federal prosecutor, Fitzgerald should now evaporate his grand jury as the whole premis for the investigation is now bogus. So once again, a spurious attack against Bush and his administration lies shot full of holes and like road kill, will shrivel away into the annals of inept liberalism. Well at least the Dems now have WP to run up the flag pole.

[Vander]

Heh. Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but how does Woodward being told this classified information, presumably before anyone else, "regulate" the whole Plame scandal to fabrication? Does it render Scooter's alledgedly false statements true?

It looks to me like theres another person in the White House passing information they shouldn't to reporters. This somehow clears up the whole mess?

Please explain in language us liberals can understand.

[woodchip]

And just why would it have to be another person in the Whitehouse? Perhaps as me and others have said in the past, Plame working for the CIA was common knowledge...to the point her husband was introducing her as "My wife the CIA agent. What is sad is Fitzy spent what? Something like 35 million of our dollars to what amounts to the Bards play entitled "Much ado about Nothing"

[Vander]

And just why would it have to be another person in the Whitehouse?

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.

What is sad is Fitzy spent what? Something like 35 million of our dollars

In its first 15 months, the investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Again, how does the Woodward revelation throw water on the whole mess?

[Zuruck]

From the indictment, Libby was charged because he lied about when and how he covered up Plame. Was he the first? I thought Rove was identified as the first, Official A told Woodward?? Perhaps....

[Zuruck]

After reading a little news spinnet...I'm under the impression that Fitzgerald didn't even know about Woodward. Apparently, he was writing a book and didn't want to be called to testify so he didn't say anything. I bet that is the source of Official A and the continuing investigation. I think Fitzgerald knows Rove said something and wants it to keep going. I say do it...get that man out of the position he's in.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665308/#051116a

Good blog. Fitzgerald said "Libby is the first KNOWN admnistration official to pass info"...so there..cut and dry. Hopefully, it's Rove. Or Card. Either would be great...IMPEACH HIM!!

oops..i meant having sex in the oval office is bigger deal.

[Will Robinson]

oops..i meant having sex in the oval office is bigger deal.

Was someone actually charged in a court for having sex in the Oval Office?!?
Wow, I missed that one!!!

Or was that just an attempt on your part to help Clinton apologists rewrite history and you were actually refering to the incident where President Clinton used the power of his office to obstruct justice in a grand jury investigation and where he lied to the grand jury under oath, the case where his secretary removed evidence from the whitehouse and hid it under her bed at home?
You know, the case where the top law enforcement officer in the nation denied a regular citizen and the court the legal right to gather evidence so he could escape the peril of facing a lawsuit brought against him?

Is that what you meant to say...or was there really an incident where someone was actually charged with having sex in the whitehouse?

[woodchip]

Again, how does the Woodward revelation throw water on the whole mess?

From transcripts of Brit Hume and a former federal prosecutor:

JOE DIGENOVA, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think this is a very serious development for the prosecutor. I can predict that he will be holding no further news conferences because he has just been hoisted by his own petard from the last news conference he held. By alleging that Mr. Libby was in fact the initial source, he publicly bootstrapped his case on that fact.

That is now totally false and it requires him now, under Justice Department guidelines, to seriously consider dismissing the case because you cannot indict when thereâ??s a reasonable doubt and I believe now that there is reasonable doubt about Mr. Libbyâ??s state of mind.

HUME: Well, it may be the case, as Bob Woodward has now apparently testified, that Libby was not the first person who revealed this information, but prosecutorâ??s allegation is that whatever â?? whoever may have been first or second â?? he is not charged with being the first source. He is charged with coming before the grand jury and lying under oath, is he not?

DIGENOVA: Well, I think Mr. Fitzgerald has done more than that. And everyone is to be excused for not seeing it. He has done a very interesting thing in this indictment. He has talked about all this classified information, how she was a classified employee. She is not a covert employee. Thatâ??s never been established and there is no evidence that she was.

And then he tries to show that Mr. Libby was involved in spreading the information about her, knowing that she was a so-called classified employee. It is now clear that Mr. Libbyâ??s allegation by his lawyers that his memory was simply faulty makes a lot more sense now that we know that Bob Woodward was in fact the first person to receive that information, not from Mr. Libby but another, apparently former, government official.

HUME: But if in fact, Libby said that he first learned this information from Tim Russert, as he is alleged to have said, and he didnâ??t, he learned it from someone else, and heâ??s also charged with telling other lies about this information, whether he was first to say this or not, those charges would still stand would they not?

DIGENOVA: They would stand, except for this. This now puts the prosecutor in a position into having made a very bold statement about something that Mr. Libby did which is now totally untrue and Mr. Fitzgerald knows it.

It also shows that in the situation with Mr. Woodward when he spoke with Walter Pincus at The Washington Post, he claims that he told Walter Pincus about his conversation about Mrs. Wilson. Mr. Pincus says I donâ??t remember that.

What this now does for the prosecutor and for the public is put front and center the fact this witnesses can engage in the same event, have a conversation, and remember it totally differently. Mr. Libbyâ??s defense team is now free to run amuck with this notion, but Mr. Fitzgerald has a duty now. He has a very substantial duty as prosecutor.

Under Justice Department guidelines, when he has reason to believe that some fact that he has relied on is false, such as Mr. Libby being the first person to tell a reporter, he has a duty to go back and if necessary, if that creates reasonable doubt about other things in the indictment he must dismiss it.

That duty is upon him at this very moment and I hope he is going to be as honest about it as he pretends to have been about the underpinnings of the indictment.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175900,00.html

[Zuruck]

C'mon Will, you know the deeper this thing goes...and I believe it goes right to the top, the better it is for the American people. I hope this administration gets in nasty water for being the most secretive, back-stabbing administration, surpassing that of even Nixon.

On a side note, I was pleased to see that the budget deficit reduction, if you can call it that, didn't pass with GOP moderates joining Democrats. My god, the Dems are finding their backbone...where has that been for almost three years?

why didn't you respond to anything in the fitzgerald thing? and where you been??

[Zuruck]

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01340.html

The text from the conference. The first known...be smart woodchip. You know you're wrong here. Fitzgerald has nothing to worry about...Rove has something...or even better, Cheney.

[Vander]

By alleging that Mr. Libby was in fact the initial source, he publicly bootstrapped his case on that fact.

In what sense? Libby isn't charged with anything having to do with his dispensing of information. He's charged with lying about how he found out about the information.

Libby told investigators and the grand jury that he learned about Plame from Cheney as a passing comment shortly before he talked to Russert. He said Russert told him about Plame, but he had forgotten that Cheney told him before since it was such an inconsequential thing, so he took it like it was new information.

In the indictment, it's alledged that Libby learned about Plame from multiple government employees and specifically discussed Plame with mulitple government employees before talking to Russert. And Russert denies that Plame was discussed in their conversation.

Under Justice Department guidelines, when he has reason to believe that some fact that he has relied on is false, such as Mr. Libby being the first person to tell a reporter, he has a duty to go back and if necessary, if that creates reasonable doubt about other things in the indictment he must dismiss it.

I don't see where Fitzgerald relied on the fact that Libby was the first leaker in the charges against him.

[woodchip]

By alleging that Mr. Libby was in fact the initial source, he publicly bootstrapped his case on that fact.

In what sense? Libby isn't charged with anything having to do with his dispensing of information. He's charged with lying about how he found out about the information.

While Libby is not charged with revealing Plame, at the outset he was under suspicion of such. The inditement for lying came later.

Libby told investigators and the grand jury that he learned about Plame from Cheney as a passing comment shortly before he talked to Russert. He said Russert told him about Plame, but he had forgotten that Cheney told him before since it was such an inconsequential thing, so he took it like it was new information.

In the indictment, it's alledged that Libby learned about Plame from multiple government employees and specifically discussed Plame with mulitple government employees before talking to Russert. And Russert denies that Plame was discussed in their conversation.

As the following shows, memories of conversations can be faulty and not limited to Libby:

It also shows that in the situation with Mr. Woodward when he spoke with Walter Pincus at The Washington Post, he claims that he told Walter Pincus about his conversation about Mrs. Wilson. Mr. Pincus says I donâ??t remember that.

Under Justice Department guidelines, when he has reason to believe that some fact that he has relied on is false, such as Mr. Libby being the first person to tell a reporter, he has a duty to go back and if necessary, if that creates reasonable doubt about other things in the indictment he must dismiss it.

I don't see where Fitzgerald relied on the fact that Libby was the first leaker in the charges against him.

JOE DIGENOVA, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: "By alleging that Mr. Libby was in fact the initial source, he publicly bootstrapped his case on that fact."

I don't have access to transcripts of Fitzgeralds speech so I can't attest to the accuracy of DiGenova's statement. If JD is accurate then Fitzgerald must dismiss the case. Again, on top of all this, if Plame was not a covert agent then the whole grandjury business was just another baseless attempt to paint the Bush administration in a bad light. I guess it is like if you yell "FIRE" loud enough and long enough, people will think they smell smoke.

[Zuruck]

I posted the link woodchip to the entire text of Fitzgerald's press conference. Saying that he was the only known leak so far is a lot different than saying he was the first. Known means the first they caught...that is what he said. Republicans would love to sit and say that this vindicates their man but it actually makes things worse. Now Fitzgerald can pursue a lot more...who was this official? And you know what, I say go after Woodward. Make him say that it was Rove, please God, make him say it was Rove.

[woodchip]

Zuruck, there was no crime committed. Get over it.

[Vander]

As the following shows, memories of conversations can be faulty and not limited to Libby:

I think the indictment shows Fitzgerald's feeling that the difference between Libby's statements and what Fitzgerald believes actually happened is just too great to be attributed to faulty memory. Obviously, a jury will have to decide, but it looks to me like Fitzgerald has a legitimate case against Libby.

Pincus not remembering Woodward telling him about Plame doesn't have anything to do with Libby. It isn't evidence that Libby was just forgetful. If we find that Woodward told Pincus 4 or 5 times and that they had specific discussions on it, is Pincus still forgetful? Fitzgerald even says that Libby's story about forgetting that Cheney told him about Plame was entirely plausible, until he found that Libby learned and discussed the information on numerous other occasions.

Woodchip, hypothetically, if Libby really did lie and mislead investigators and the grand jury, should Fitzgerald not prosecute him because he wasn't the first leaker?

[woodchip]

Libby should be prosecuted if in fact he lied (ala Martha Stewart). On the other hand if it is just a case of faulty memory then that is a wholly different issue.
I guess we wait and see what all the facts are before we convict him.

[Zuruck]

Woodchip, he still committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and whatever else he was indicted for. Why do you feel like this is no big deal? You probably feel like Clinton committed a big crime and Libby is fine don't you?

On another note, they are leaning towards Hadley as the possible source. Hmmm...national security advisor, well deputy at that time, telling people about CIA analysts...that's really cool.

wait till we see huh? how long did you wait 'till you thought clinton was guilty?

[Vander]

I'm glad you feel that way. My original question still remains, though: What does the new information of Libby not being the first to leak have to do with how truthful he was about how he learned the information? Granted, if he was thought to be the first leaker, it may have put him in a defensive state of mind. But that is akin to suggesting that Libby's testimony would have been more truthful if he was not thought to be the first leaker.

And Pincus not remembering Woodward telling him the information doesn't indicate some sort of memory reducing property of the information that would also apply to Libby.

I don't think the Woodward revelation has any repercussions to the Libby case, other than that it is being used as a smoke screen by the Libby camp to further complicate and obfuscate the case in the public mind.

*edit - Uh Oh. It looks like Fitzy is still Fizzing.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00958.html

[woodchip]

So what will the premis of the new GJ be? Can't be about Plame as we all know her real status. Perhaps it will revolve around someone else who may have lied under oath. From your link Vander:

"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."

"Woodchip, he still committed perjury, obstruction of justice, and whatever else he was indicted for. Why do you feel like this is no big deal?" Zuruck

Try reading my prior reply. I said he (Libby) should be prosecuted.

[Vander]

So what will the premis of the new GJ be?

I would guess it has to do with Woodward and his source (who has already identified himself to Fitzgerald), and reviewing how this new information plays with previous testimony. Probably another perjury/false statements/obstruction charge.

[Zuruck]

Zuruck, there was no crime committed. Get over it.

I thought you were talking about Libby. Did you think Clinton's charges were justified? And how so?