All the (Vice) President's Men
The CIA leak investigation just got a whole lot more interesting. The New York Times just posted a story that leads with this bombshell:
As to the first question, I think we have to assume that the notes at issue only recently found their way into Fitzgerald's hands. Otherwise, why would Libby have testified the way he did? But we know that the bulk of Libby's notes were turned over to prosecutors early in the investigation (props to Tom Maguire for reminding everyone last week that Libby's "copious notes" might turn out to be important). So why were the notes of this particular conversation not turned over to prosecutors until recently? There are only two reasonable explanations: either they were never subpoenaed, or they were deliberately withheld. Given Fitzgerald's thoroughness and the nature of Libby's testimony, I think the latter explanation is more likely. If the notes were deliberately withheld, Libby himself is the most likely person to have done so. They were, after all, his notes. For that same reason, Libby is also the the most likely person to have eventually turned the notes over to Fitzgerald.
If these inferences are correct (and I realize I'm stacking a lot of 'ifs' here), then Libby would appear to be cooperating with Fitzgerald, most likely in an effort to secure a lesser charge. That brings us to the second set of questions: who leaked this information and why? Given the way Fitzgerald has run his investigation, I'm going to guess that the "lawyers involved in the case" are not from his office. Could it have been Libby's attorneys? Possibly, but it's hard to see what their motive would have been, other than perhaps warning the administration (and Cheney in particular) of what was coming. If Libby is trying to convince Fitzgerald to charge him with a lesser offense, however, leaking crucial information about the investigation is not a very good way to do that. It seems to me that the most likely source of this leak are lawyers representing Cheney himself. This may be an attempt on their part to introduce damaging information on their own terms. If Libby is about to be indicted, the indictment itself might well make public much of this information, and in a way that Cheney's lawyers could not effectively control or spin. This may be an attempt to beat Fitzgerald to the punch. Consider the following passages from the article:
UPDATE: Apparently the folks over at The Note share my suspicions regarding the source of this leak:
Although they also add this:
I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President DickWow! What's the proof? According to the Times:
Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about
the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak
investigation in a conversation with
Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity
became public in 2003, lawyers involved in
the case said Monday.
Notes of the previously undisclosedThe Times adds:
conversation between Mr. Libby and
Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to
differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a
federal grand jury that he initially learned
about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson,
from journalists, the lawyers said.
The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the
conversation, for the first time place
Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the
White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's
husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was
questioning the administration's handling of
intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program
to justify the war.
But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald'sThe first question that should occur to anyone who reads this story is: where did these crucial notes come from? The second and third questions are: who is leaking this information and why?
possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first
heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known
by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from
Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in
his testimony suggests why prosecutors are
weighing false statement charges against him
in what they interpret as an effort by
Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from
scrutiny, the lawyers said.
As to the first question, I think we have to assume that the notes at issue only recently found their way into Fitzgerald's hands. Otherwise, why would Libby have testified the way he did? But we know that the bulk of Libby's notes were turned over to prosecutors early in the investigation (props to Tom Maguire for reminding everyone last week that Libby's "copious notes" might turn out to be important). So why were the notes of this particular conversation not turned over to prosecutors until recently? There are only two reasonable explanations: either they were never subpoenaed, or they were deliberately withheld. Given Fitzgerald's thoroughness and the nature of Libby's testimony, I think the latter explanation is more likely. If the notes were deliberately withheld, Libby himself is the most likely person to have done so. They were, after all, his notes. For that same reason, Libby is also the the most likely person to have eventually turned the notes over to Fitzgerald.
If these inferences are correct (and I realize I'm stacking a lot of 'ifs' here), then Libby would appear to be cooperating with Fitzgerald, most likely in an effort to secure a lesser charge. That brings us to the second set of questions: who leaked this information and why? Given the way Fitzgerald has run his investigation, I'm going to guess that the "lawyers involved in the case" are not from his office. Could it have been Libby's attorneys? Possibly, but it's hard to see what their motive would have been, other than perhaps warning the administration (and Cheney in particular) of what was coming. If Libby is trying to convince Fitzgerald to charge him with a lesser offense, however, leaking crucial information about the investigation is not a very good way to do that. It seems to me that the most likely source of this leak are lawyers representing Cheney himself. This may be an attempt on their part to introduce damaging information on their own terms. If Libby is about to be indicted, the indictment itself might well make public much of this information, and in a way that Cheney's lawyers could not effectively control or spin. This may be an attempt to beat Fitzgerald to the punch. Consider the following passages from the article:
These appear to be exactly the sort of mitigating facts that Cheney's lawyers would have wanted to emphasize. They would not want the first public evidence of Cheney's role in the affair to be on the face of an indictment. This could very well end up being Cheney's Watergate.[The notes] contain no suggestion that either
Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of
Ms. Wilson's undercover status or that her
identity was classified. Disclosing a covert
agent's identity can be a crime, but only if
the person who discloses it knows the agent's
undercover status.
[snip]
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney
or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably
cleared to know the government's deepest
secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link
to a critic of the administration.
[snip]
The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew
the name of Mr. Wilson's wife.
UPDATE: Apparently the folks over at The Note share my suspicions regarding the source of this leak:
Although we would Note that there is no
mention of Cheney's lawyer, Terrence
O'Donnell of Williams and Connolly in the
Times story. ABC News has been told that
Mr. O'Donnell is out of the country currently.
Could the Times really not have tried to reach
Mr. Cheney's lawyer or not Note that they did
try? Any Note reader not familiar with
Williams and Connolly's fabled history of
last-minute strategic leaking to one single
news organization on behalf of political clients
needs to spend the day on Nexis.
Although they also add this:
On the other hand, the Gang of 500 is veryNow that I've had a night to think about it, I'm still not sure. I'm almost positive this story was leaked by either Libby's attorneys or Cheney's attorneys, but I don't know which.
focused on the specificity of what Libby lawyer
Tate would not comment on within the Times
story. Some see it as quite different from the
usual construction that "he could not be
reached" or "would not comment." But the
Times story says, "…Mr. Libby's lawyer,
Joseph Tate, would not comment on
Mr. Libby's legal status." ... For some, that
makes Tate, quite simply, the Gang's number
one suspect.
posted by A.L. at 10:36 PM
5 Comments:
I agree with the use of the word "bombshell".
And I suppose that Libby might have turned over some "lost" notes late in the game.
However, he would also have had to hope that Fitzgerald would overlook both WH and CIA phone logs of a Tenet-Cheney call, and hope that both Tenet and Cheney would lie/forget. Now, in a grand, coordinated conspiracy, that may be possible, but why panic now? Bush gave Tenet a Medal of Freedon, and he will pardon Libby if he protects Cheney.
Now, I am not saying I have a better theory, but...
The leaks about Libby's testimony are not coming from Fitzgerald.
So let's assume they are coming from Libby's lawyers. My utterly-baffled guess - Libby's lawyers have been running a media disinformation campaign with two objectives:
(1) keep Cheney out of this story as long as possible (Mission Accomplished - we are in the last week!), and;
(2) embarrass the media by suggesting that they are the alibi witnesses. Libby's lawyers correctly guessed that right wing chumps like me would eat that up. "Useful idiot" would be the operative description.
In this theory, Libby's lawyers reviewed his notes when they turned them over in 2003/04, Libby never really used the media as an alibi in his testimony, and the Judy thing was an oversight (since Russert was never Libby's alibi, her story that Libby knew about Plame in June is no big deal).
What is clever is that the Clinton people's media strategy (allegedly) gave out disinformation leaks attacking Starr, which prompted his (illegally leaked) responses.
The Bush team attacked the press, not Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald never responded, the media got twisted around Judy Miller, and here we are.
Last thought on timing - maybe this comes out now as a reassurance to David Wurmser - per the Raw Story account, he may be worried that he told Libby something Libby did not already know.
Now, BIG CAVEAT - my suggestion sounds exactly like the sort of "Look how smart the Bush people must be" scheme that I find so annoying when other righties do it. And there is plenty of evidence of their non-omniscience.
Something to think about - how would this have developed if the WH had just leaked in July that Tenet told Cheney and Libby?
Maybe better for the WH - would the scandal have all gone away? Almost vcertainly not - I'm guessing that they guessed, correctly, that keeping Cheney out of it was a better strategy.
As we say, DEVELOPING...
Tom Maguire
That's interesting. You're right that none of this seems to add up. It's funny that such a crazy suggestion almost seems plausible under the circumstances. Whether you're right, or I'm right, or neither of us are right, I'm pretty sure of one thing: the truth is this case will be very strange when revealed.
It seems to me that the most likely source of this leak are lawyers representing Cheney himself. This may be an attempt on their part to introduce damaging information on their own terms. If Libby is about to be indicted, the indictment itself might well make public much of this information, and in a way that Cheney's lawyers could not effectively control or spin.
Very good point, and interesting follow from the NOTE, but..
Maybe the Times put all the "Cheney is in the clear" disclaimers in there because they could *not* contact his lawyer.
Surely they could have found someone to say "This is a dark, dark day for Cheney, but a new dawn of freedom for America" as long as they had the ofsetting denial from Cheney's attorney.
Tom
Here's a question Tom.
Would the NYT or any other paper print anything Libby's lawyer says going forward, if he has been running a "media disinformation campaign".
I would think that Tate's reputation would be ruined if he has been telling lies to the press.
Pollyusa
Reputation for what? The Times does not pay his bills, clients do.
And I'm not saying Tate lied, exactly, just emphasized certain aspects of Libby's testimony.
Anyway, from the Wed WaPo, I get some oxygen:
Two lawyers involved in the case said that, based on Fitzgerald's earlier questions, the prosecutor has been aware of Libby's June 12 conversation with Cheney since the early days of his investigation. The lawyers said Libby recorded in his notes that Cheney relayed to him that Wilson's wife may have had a role in Wilson taking the CIA-sponsored mission to Niger. According to a source familiar with Libby's testimony, Libby told the grand jury he believed he heard of Wilson's wife first from reporters.
So Fitzgerald had the notes from the opening bell, which suggests he got them with the rest of Libby's notes, which takes me back to, how did Libby *not* know about it?
But there is that pesky "source familiar" delivering the "Blame the media" spin.
Tom
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home