Look, I’m as sick as anyone of writing about l’affair Plame. I’d much rather write about how Fred Thompson undermined the Watergate investigation. But the enemies of the truth are so persistent and the stakes so high, that I can’t just sit by and let history be rewritten. The President wants us to forget all about his commutation of Libby’s sentence now that we’re done watching fireworks and digesting our hot dogs. I’ve got to speak up. The worst offenders in this revisionist history are people that are ostensibly on our side…like Michael Kinsley. Kinsley makes an argument that Scooter Libby should not have been questioned at all because he was placed in a perjury trap.
Let’s start with the basics. Here’s Novak:
Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger…
So, all this mumbo-jumbo about how the FBI knew the leaker was Richard Armitage ignores the fact that the FBI was looking for at least two leakers. For Kinsley, the following is supposed to be somehow significant.
True, Mr. Libby was not the source for Robert Novak, whose column identifying Mr. Wilson’s wife as a C.I.A. operative started the whole business.
Chronologically, Armitage told Novak first, and then Novak got his information confirmed by Karl Rove. Let’s focus on the FBI part of this, because it predates the appointment of Fitzgerald and it is the FBI that made the decision to question Scooter Libby. Take a look at a significant date from 2003.
October 6
- 6:30 a.m. MT – Scooter Libby meets Dick Cheney at Cheney’s residence in Wyoming. (Libby calendar)
- Newsweek reports that Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” was the journalist who called Mr. Wilson and said, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove who said your wife is fair game.” At the very least, those familiar with the conversation said “it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger.” (Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003 issue)
- 1:15 p.m. – White House spokesman Scott McClellan says “if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.” (transcript)
- 2:45 p.m. – Scooter Libby meets with his lawyer to prepare for his first FBI interview. (Libby calendar)
Libby talked to the FBI on October 14. You can read about what he said in his indictment (.pdf). But the FBI had already interviewed Richard Armitage on October 2 and learned that he was one of the two senior officials cited in Novak’s column.
Kinsley’s argument is somewhat convoluted here, as he struggles to make his point. At base, though, he is saying Libby never should have faced a ‘perjury trap’ which is tantamount to saying he should not have been questioned at all.
So when Mr. Libby was questioned by federal investigators pursuing the leaks, he too was caught in a perjury trap. He could either tell the truth, thereby implicating colleagues and very possibly himself, in leaking classified security information (the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife), or he could lie. In either case he would be breaking the law or admitting to having done so, and in either case he could have gone to prison. Mr. Libby, like Mr. Clinton, made the wrong choice.
There is nothing wrong with a perjury trap, as long as both sides of the pincer are legitimate. The abuse comes when prosecutors induce a crime (lying under oath) by exploiting an action that is not a crime…
…So as much as I dislike the war in Iraq, as much as I dislike President Bush, as much as I expect that I would dislike Mr. Libby if I ever met him, I feel that he should not have had to face a perjury trap: the choice between prison for lying, or prison for his role in a set of transactions that the press regards as not merely O.K. but sacrosanct.
On October 14, the FBI knew that Armitage was one leaker, but they didn’t know that Karl Rove was the other. Plus, let’s look at what we now know.
June 13: First known outing to reporters: Armitage tells Woodward. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward interviews Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage for his book. Armitage tells Woodward that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction as a WMD analyst…
June 23: 3:00 p.m. – Second known outing to reporters: Libby tells Miller. New York Times reporter Judith Miller meets with Scooter Libby in Libby’s office. Libby tells Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
July 8: 8:30 a.m. – Third known outing to reporters: Libby again tells Miller. Scooter Libby meets with New York Times reporter Judith Miller over a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C. They discuss CIA operative Valerie Plame (Libby indictment p. 7). Miller’s notes contain the phrase “Wife works at Winpac”
July 8: Afternoon – Fourth known outing to reporters: Armitage tells Novak. Robert Novak interviews Richard Armitage at Armitage’s office. Armitage tells Novak that Wilson’s wife is a CIA employee. According to Armitage, Novak asked him at the end of the interview why the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger. His recollection is that he replied, “I don’t know, but his wife works out there.” According to Novak at trial, Armitage says that Wilson was suggested by wife Valerie who was employee in CPD at the CIA.
July 9: Fifth known outing to reporters: Rove confirms to Novak. Robert Novak and Karl Rove speak by phone, ostensibly about a story on the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend. Novak turns to the subject of Valerie Wilson. Novak claims to Rove that he knows that Joseph Wilson had been sent on the trip to Niger at the urging of Ms. Wilson. (Novak testimony; NYT)
In Novak’s telling, Rove responds by saying “Oh, you know about it.”(Townhall)
In Rove’s telling, Rove responds by saying “I heard that, too.” (WaPo)
July 10 or 11: Libby speaks with Karl Rove. Libby is advised of Rove’s earlier-that-week conversation with Robert Novak, that Wilson’s wife was discussed, and that Novak will be writing a column (Libby Indictment, p. 8). Libby has testified he told Rove about Russert.
July 11: around 8:00 a.m. EST – Sixth known outing to reporters: Fleischer tells Gregory and Dickerson. Ari Fleischer tells reporters David Gregory of NBC and John Dickerson of Time, “If you want to know who sent Ambassador Wilson to Niger, it was his wife, she works there.”
July 11: Before 11:07 a.m. – Seventh known outing to reporters: Rove tells Cooper. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and had a hand in sending him to Niger, and that the story will be coming out. Rove does not mention her by name. (Cooper’s notes)
July 12: 1:26 p.m. – Eighth known outing to reporters: Fleischer tells Pincus. Fleisher calls Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. Fleisher tells Pincus that the White House had not paid attention to Wilson’s trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife…
Every one of these leaks was worthy of investigation. The quantity and variety of sources for the leaks suggested a coordinated campaign. The FBI needed to investigate who put the effort in motion. Libby was an early leaker of this information and the official responsible for giving it to Ari Fleischer. Why give information to the press secretary if you don’t want the information passed on to the press?
The FBI had to run down the facts to determine who knew what and who ordered it. Just because they had determined that Armitage was one source didn’t mean they had resolved the issue. The facts strongly indicate that Libby was acting on orders from the president and vice-president.
The fact that the President commuted his sentence is one clue. Remember, the President was supposed to be furious about this leak and determined to get to the bottom of it. If Libby concealed his role from the President for three years, thereby damaging his credibility, do you think Bush would feel charitably towards him? Another clue that Bush ordered the leaks is revealed in the vice-president’s hand-written memo.
For the hard of sight, that says: ‘Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.’
Based on that information, and other clues unearthed in Fitzgerald’s investigation, it is highly likely that Libby was part of a deliberate plot to out Valerie Wilson. But people like Kinsley argue that the FBI should have known everything about this case after interviewing Richard Armitage on October 2, 2003. Didn’t they, at least, have to determine why Karl Rove confirmed Armitage’s information? Who told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame? What did they tell him?
And so, Scooter Libby was questioned on October 14th. And he lied. And then he had to continue to lie to cover up his initial lies. It seems highly likely that Cheney and Libby entered into a conspiracy to mislead the FBI on October 6th in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This commutation is the culmination of that conspiracy.
But the FBI was wrong to question Libby at all.
thanks for keeping on this. Do you know of any paleographic (i.e. specialists in analysis of ancient manuscripts, used for dating ancient mss, reading layers of text, etc; I’ve used such analysis in my work, but always used the work of others) analysis of the handwritten note? It looks strange to me – the spacing – i.e. big space between crossed out words and next word, the crossed out words, and at least two kinds of handwriting, suggests to me a note that was emended at least once. do we know that the original doesn’t have something whited out in the space where the prez is crossed out?
The Michael Kinsley’s of this world are exactly like the Nancy Pelosi’s and the other Dems who have ulterior motives for their waffling and obfuscating. They know damn well that what Libby did — perjury and obstruction of justice — ARE crimes. To say he was unfairly set up…pursued when he should not have been….simply tells me ….that Michael Kinsley has SOLD OUT….just like the others of his ilk.
They have their reasons.
Some of us know full well what they are.
It doesn’t change the truth.
It doesn’t change the breadth and depth of the Neo-cons’ crimes and destruction of our Rule of Law, Constitution….and country’s standing in the world because of what they have done.
Thanks, BooMan. You have not wasted your time here. It is always important to speak
TRUTH TO POWER.
And to the CORRUPT media!
Thank you.
His argument is also totally press-centric.
Basically he is saying that Libby shouldn’t be punished for leaking classified information because the media highly values the leaking of classified information.
Who cares what the media values?
Also–and this is an important point–even if Nancy, Harry, etc. used their power to act in some way, our “friends” like Kinsley would happily cut them off at the knees for it.
And then you have some wingnut or damn near anyone in mainstream media saying, “Well, ‘liberal’ columnist/writer/etc. said…” to undermine any action against this crime syndicate administration.
Not that I’m saying they’re chomping at the bit to do battle against this administration where it really counts, but even on the small stuff, it seems that one of our media “friends” exist only to undermine us.
also, where is the pdf of the note? I’d like to see where the writing is with respect to the border of the piece of paper. looks to me like “this guy” was added later. “others” and “not going” also look like another layer. could there be a white out of a name and “this guy” written on top?
I’m not seeing it.
I do see a space for the missing ‘ident’
But that’s it.
there’s more to be said (and I’ll add later- still workday in theory here). but this is what I see: 1. “not going” and “the guy” both slant up, as if written on a line slanting up from left to right – could be because they’re running into the margin (“this guy”) but “Not going” looks like it has plenty of space. . so shouldn’t slant up. the entire line should be on the same slant. hence i think those phrases were added 2- “others” is written larger than the rest of words immediately preceding. look at size and spacing between the two words in “of the” immediately above and compare with “of others”. if writer stopped after “of” and added “others” I’d expect the “o” of others to be small like the o in of. it has more space than “of the” but could be stopped a sec to think about it. if “of others” were written in one motion, without stopping, probably a little closer together. Large O plus the space makes it look like an addition (over a whited out name?)
3. the space between crossed off “pres” and “that” is huge. nowhere else in the note is there that much space between words. don’t know what I think about the entire note, though. possible: Not going, the guy and others all added. original said “to protect one staffer and sacrifice the prez” ?? the rest? don’t know, must think some more. there are variations in formation of letters, but not enough that I’d say different person wrote it, just a person at a different time. I’m pondering the “g”‘s though, and “o” of other – how closed, not closed, etc.
my explanation is that the vice-president is actually undead and has unusual brainwave function.
I’ve said this before, but this happens because our media is controlled by crooks.
or that the administration didn’t out Plame, I tell them that Clinton didn’t lie about having sex with Lewinsky.
After all, if all comes down to minute and manipulative shadings of meaning, is fellatio the same as sex?
Bill Clinton: “I never had sex with that woman”. (What he apparently meant was) She had sex with me.
If Bush didn’t lie, neither did Clinton. Who knows, maybe when he made that comment, he had simply forgotten. Gee, if it can happen to every single W administration official who takes the stand, it could happen to Clinton.
Erroll:
I believe you’ll find the pdf re the notes here:
http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml
look at the right hand column.
thanks!
.
The first witness
Marc Grossman, the former under secretary of state, was the first person to be called to the witness stand by prosecutors. Grossman is said to have advised Libby on June 12, 2003 that former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and helped arrange for his fact-finding trip to Niger. Defense attorneys have called him “a critical witness for the government.”
Grossman according to prosecutors is one of the first officials to tell Libby that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and had a role in the Niger trip.
Fitzgerald said that Cheney also told Libby about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA in early June.
…
The defense says that Grossman was visited by the state department’s second in command Richard Armitage, the night before his interview with the FBI.
…
Using a computerized calendar during opening statement, Fitzgerald described a tumultuous week in 2003 when he said the White House was under “direct attack” from Wilson.
Fitzgerald said Libby learned from five people — from Cheney to members of the CIA and State Department — that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. Libby discussed that fact to reporters and others in the White House, Fitzgerald said.
● NSC Memo Clarke to Rice – Jan. 25, 2001
● Strategy for Eliminating Threat from Al Qaeda – Dec. 2000
● Cheney’s Obsession with Iraq – Feb. 1, 2001
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Looked at the pdf (thanks, Sandy!)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
[note – link has both the one note and the entire group below it]
this note is the third of three Cheney notes added to someone’s talking points about Libby and Rove. The other two cheney notes have an underline separating them. I think the “cross out” in “the prez” was originally an underline – the original note was brief “not going to protect one staffer” was all it said, then underline. Phrases were added to to “explain”. I also think that “about Scooter as Karl” was added to note 2 (clarification).
My current thought is originally the 3 notes were very brief, said
[1] has to happen today / [2] Call out to key press saying same thing / [3] Not going to protect one staffer /
phrases were added for clarification to help poor Fitz who otherwise might have trouble understanding the undead’s brevity