The Possible Significance of the June Conversation
After noting the relatively short duration of Judith Miller's second appearance before the grand jury yesterday, Mark Kleiman makes the following observation:
I can't say I know the answer to this, but I do have an idea. According to the Washington Post:
A later Post article is even more specific:
And finally, as I've noted before, the statement issued by NBC and Russert regarding his testimony is easily parsed. The statement reads:
The leaves open the possibility that Russert told Libby something along the lines of 'I heard Wilson's wife works for the CIA.'
So what does all this have to do with the June conversation between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby? Well, if these press reports are accurate, Libby's substantive defense to charges that he violated the IIPA or Espionage Act is that he first learned about Plame from Russert (or some other journalist) and therefore he could not knowingly have been peddling classified information when he spoke to other journalists about Plame. His conversation with Russert is known to have taken place in July 2003. Murray Waas reports, however, that Libby spoke to Miller on June 23 about Plame.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Fitzgerald may have needed Miller's testimony about the June conversation in order to torpedo Libby's story that he first learned about Plame from Tim Russert in July. This would also explain why Libby did not want Miller to testify and did not mention this prior conversation in his previous interviews and grand jury appearances. But Miller, who has surely read the same press reports I have and read Libby's suggestive letter, might have guessed that any mention of the June conversation could potentially be disastrous for Libby. She may even have deliberately failed to mention the June conversation in her initial testimony in an effort to protect Libby, thus necessitating Fitzgerald's perjury trap. Under this scenario, Fitzgerald would not have needed to question Miller very long in her second appearance. He would only need to confirm that Libby knew about Plame in June.
This speculation assumes, of course, that all of the above-referenced press reports are accurate, which may be a dubious assumption. Nevertheless, I think we may be getting closer to the truth.
But that leaves a puzzle for proponents of the
Mousetrap Theory: Why should Fitzgerald
bother to mousetrap Miller into perjuring
herself about the June meeting if the only
thing he get out of it is her confirmation that
the meeting took place?
I can't say I know the answer to this, but I do have an idea. According to the Washington Post:
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President
Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified
before the grand jury, saying he was alerted
by someone in the media to Plame's identity,
according to a source familiar with his account.
A later Post article is even more specific:
Libby has testified that he learned aboutMichael Isikoff has reported the following about the deal that led to Russert's testimony:
Plame from NBC correspondent Tim
Russert, according to a source who spoke
with The Washington Post some months ago.
A deal that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
cut last year for NBC "Meet the Press" host
Tim Russert's testimony may shed light on
the emerging White House defense in the
Valerie Plame leak case. The agreement
between Fitzgerald and NBC avoided a court
fight over a subpoena for Russert's testimony
about his July 2003 talk with Dick Cheney's
top aide, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The deal was
not, as many assumed, for Russert's testimony
about what Libby told him: it focused on what
Russert told Libby.
And finally, as I've noted before, the statement issued by NBC and Russert regarding his testimony is easily parsed. The statement reads:
Mr. Russert told the special prosecutor that, at
the time of that conversation, he did not know
Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA
operative, and that he did not provide that
information to Mr. Libby.
The leaves open the possibility that Russert told Libby something along the lines of 'I heard Wilson's wife works for the CIA.'
So what does all this have to do with the June conversation between Judith Miller and Scooter Libby? Well, if these press reports are accurate, Libby's substantive defense to charges that he violated the IIPA or Espionage Act is that he first learned about Plame from Russert (or some other journalist) and therefore he could not knowingly have been peddling classified information when he spoke to other journalists about Plame. His conversation with Russert is known to have taken place in July 2003. Murray Waas reports, however, that Libby spoke to Miller on June 23 about Plame.
Libby . . . did not disclose a crucial conversation
that he had with New York Times reporter
Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative,
Valerie Plame, according to sources with
firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Fitzgerald may have needed Miller's testimony about the June conversation in order to torpedo Libby's story that he first learned about Plame from Tim Russert in July. This would also explain why Libby did not want Miller to testify and did not mention this prior conversation in his previous interviews and grand jury appearances. But Miller, who has surely read the same press reports I have and read Libby's suggestive letter, might have guessed that any mention of the June conversation could potentially be disastrous for Libby. She may even have deliberately failed to mention the June conversation in her initial testimony in an effort to protect Libby, thus necessitating Fitzgerald's perjury trap. Under this scenario, Fitzgerald would not have needed to question Miller very long in her second appearance. He would only need to confirm that Libby knew about Plame in June.
This speculation assumes, of course, that all of the above-referenced press reports are accurate, which may be a dubious assumption. Nevertheless, I think we may be getting closer to the truth.
posted by A.L. at 8:56 AM
15 Comments:
I have searched high and low for the date of the Russert/Libby converstion. The date as far as I can tell has never been published.
Another question to ask is who told Russert, and when.
pollyusa
Isikoff says the Russert-Libby conversation took place in July 2003, though he doesn't give a specific date.
As for your second question, I agree. If Russert knew, how did he find out in the first place?
A crucial link in this chain concerns whether Libby and Miller in June 2003 discussed Wilson's wife or just Wilson. As far as I can tell, Waas' report is the only one that asserts it concerned Plame, and not just Joe Wilson, which is what all the other reports concerning the June conversation have asserted. Plus,that part of Waas' report is oddly sourced (though i don't think he's saying that the basis for the info that the conversation concerned Plame comes from Libby's testimony via those familiar with it, which would presumably be impossible). But this makes me think it was perhaps an inadvertent assertion on Waas' part and not actually something we can count on. On the other hand, if anyone is in a position to know stuff that other reporters don't, it's evidently Waas.
That's a good point, one that Tom Maguire's been making. If Waas is wrong about the content of the June conversation, it does potentially derail this particular line of speculation.
Thanks for the notice.
I had an all-encompassing theory of Miller's testimony that struck me so forcefully that I grasped, and experienced, the "lightbulb" metaphor.
But I was looking for a missing kitten, and the theory left me.
Now, we have found the darn kitten (almost exactly in the middle of her nest, looking as though she had *not* been gone for half a day), but it is my theory that has gone missing.
However, here is an attempt to recapture it:
(a) per the WaPo:
One source close to Miller said it appears that the notes were Fitzgerald's first indication that Miller and Libby had spoken in June.
Last year, Fitzgerald subpoenaed Miller's notes for discussions she had with Libby from July 6 to July 13 but included no mention of June, the source said.
[SKIP]
After Miller testified before the grand jury Sept. 30, a source close to Miller said, Fitzgerald and her attorney urged her to go back through her old notes and turn over any that involved Libby or would be relevant to the case, the source said.
So, my guess - Judy testifies to something suggesting an earlier talk, but with no details (E.g., "I may have spoken to Libby, I would need to check my notes").
Hence, the current WSJ - "She made a second appearance Wednesday to disclose a third conversation in late June that she had previously failed to mention to the grand jury."
Anyway, whatever she says prompts Fitzgerald and her attorney to give her a pep talk about checking her notes.
Her attorney's message - the subpoena covers "all relevant" notes. IF the July 8 talk was a follow-up to an earlier talk, they are very arguably relevant.
AND, he goes on, this is a court fight Fitzgerald will win - he has exhaused reasonable alternatives for this evidence, since Libby has still not mentioned it (and even if he does, Fitzgerald can compel her corraboration, as per the July 8 talk).
So, Judy can deliver the notes now, or fight and deliver them later (and she can fight from jail, since the contempt order is in effect.)
She hands over the notes, and gives full testimony about the earlier talk.
But she never perjured herself, and did not *really* compromise her principles - per my estimate of her legal advice, she had no leg to stand on.
Anyway, it's a guess. I will be incommunicado until Sunday, so look for indictments Friday. (NO, it is not all about me, but I am feeling unlucky.)
Tom Maguire
Thanks, Tom. I hope the indictments don't come while you're gone (but I do hope they come eventually).
As for the scenario you describe, I actually had the same idea, and I still consider it a plausible alternative to the perjury trap idea. There are a couple of difficult facts which it has to overcome, though. First, presumably Fitzgerald asked the same questions in his jailhouse proffer prior to Miller's release. If she gave an ambiguous answer about prior conversations with Libby, why didn't he instruct her to go find the notes then and bring them to the grand jury? Why did the notes only surface well after the grand jury appearance? Second, Miller and her attorneys were very upbeat after her initial grand jury testimony. They very much acted like they thought she was entirely off the hook. That makes me think they were not informed until later that day (or the next day) that Fitzgerald wasn't done with Miller yet. That fact seems to be more consistent with the perjury trap scenario.
Hi - thanks for your continued great work.
Someone came up with the idea that Miller's testimony was short because she was taking the 5th. Any opinions on that theory?
anonymous, perhaps you can tell me something. I am wondering about the indictments and how these grand juries work. There is some indication that Fitzgerald has recently gone back to the judge to perhaps ask for an extension of the grand jury past october 28. I assume that this would largely have to do with the new Rove-Hadley memo, the new Miller notebook, and the involvement of the major players in the White house Iraq group and whatever all those people had to do with the Plame outing and the leaking of classified info. let's say that the judge says ok and extends things for 6 months.
is it possible that Fitz will/can issue indictments based on what he already knows? And then continue working on other aspects of the whole enchilada and issue even more indictments down the road?
If Fitz has wrapped up pretty much on the Plame outing (remember for a long while it seemed as if all he was waiting on was Miller's testimony), I assume that indictments can be issued on just that aspect of the grand jury work. And then later on there could be more indictments based on what he learns over the coming months about the Iraq Group. Is that correct?
If there is no extension, then obviously the indictments will be coming out within the next few days or so.
Hi
Can anyone help me construct a 'What really happened' series of events. I know this is speculative but I'd like to see what the scenario may have looked like:
1. VPs office (Iraq Group) looks for reasons to invade from 2000 onwards
2. They start seeking any credible sources of information to build a case for war.
3. VPs ofice ask the CIA to check into report of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq
4. CIA sends WIlson to Niger Feb 02
5. Reports back saying there is nothing. This report is circulated in Washington.
6. Iraq group continuing to look for reasons to invade need to be able to say the threat is nuclear, they need the mushroom cloud image. If they can't say that Iraq is getting ore then the British can.
Also as a final tactic they believe that it would be easy to discredit the report from Wilson IF it ever came up saying Wilsons wife sent him.
7. By September 02 they have set up several sources of information, from the british, from so called IRaqi defectors and others whom they have placed as sources. They ask the British to get some thing on paper about the Iraq Niger connection.
9. Miller with the help of Iraq Group pens the article which was key in the administration's rational for the war. She reveals that Iraq had imported aluminium tubes from China for centrifuges capable of refining yellowcake into
weapons grade uranium. She does this knowing this information to be at the very least speculative. She quotes from "senior information officials" and "Mr. Shemri" who had an astonishing amount of knowledge of Iraq's weapons program.
Iraq group think they are in the clear. Miller interviews Libby. It is here that either Miller says she is aware of Wilson or Libby tells Miller that there is a dissenting opinion and it is not credible.
9a Rice,Rumsfield and the VP go on the talk show circuit and point to the Miller article as proof - even though they were the very ones who disseminated the information.
9b . Jan 2003. Bush state of the union states that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. But - the British told us. This helps avoid Bush going directly against what his own employee- Wilson had found out.
9c. Mar 20 2003 Iraq invaded
10. APril 21- May 21 2003 Miller writes "Radioactive material found at test site" etc. and many more articles that later turn out to be completely false. Great scoops that no one else gets. Miller knows they are false. This is her payoff for earlier articles
June 10, 2003, a State Department memo, written by under secretary of state for
10a A State Department memo written by political affairs Marc Grossman, referred to “Valerie Wilson” as the wife of former Ambassador Wilson, the envoy who had traveled to Niger. [NYT, July 16, 2005]
11. July 6 2003 Wilson does the unspeakable and writes his op-ed saying that the sale did not happen, that Bush etc. would have known this for a fact and that his report would have been widely circulated. This op-ed undermines the core rationale for going to war. Okay, so did many others do the same (Blix, the world etc.) but Wilson did something different. He discredits the fallback position of the whitehouse on blaming the CIA and intelligence failure, iraqi defectors and exilets etc. It puts the blame squarely on the whitehouse.
11a. The same day Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, sent a copy of the June 10 memo identifying Wilsons wife and details of the trip to Secretary of State Colin Powell at the Whitehouse. He takes it to Africa with him.
12. Libby and Rove seek to discredit Wilson with their preplanned tactic."The Workup" They leak wilson's wifes name to the press. Novak, a conservative columnist prints it.
12a. Chris Matthews said rove told him ‘Wilson’s wife is fair game.’”
13. Valerie Plame outed. Grand Jury investigation
14. Miller refuses to testify citing 'protecting source' reason. The actual reason is that if she outs LIbby and others in the VPs office, then they will in turn out ALL of her previous articles about WMD as willingly created lies and end her career as a journalist a la jayson blair.
15. Libby releases her bond to speak when lawyers agree to constrain the focus of testimony. This guarantees Libbys boss and others from not being a target of the investigation. Libby threatens her in a letter talking about clusters of aspens
turning together meaning that we all go down together or we all keep our mouths shut together.
16. Miller's relationship with the administration goes beyond the exlusive scoops she received. She was actively engaged in disseminating propoganda. In short, she has a second employer beside the New York times.
Obsessed: Thanks for compliment. As for the 5th Amendment idea, I don't buy it. Fitz had a proffer session with Miller on Tuesday prior to her second round of grand jury testimony. If she was going to plead the 5th, she would have done so then, and Fitz wouldn't have bothered to call her before the grand jury. Moreover, even if she did plead the 5th, Fitz would always have the option of granting her immunity (when the prosecutor grants you immunity, you have to testify. The 5th amendment is no longer applicable).
Michael: Fitzgerald can ask for the grand jury to hand down an indictment any time he wants. He doesn't have issue them all at once. That said, I think prosecutors like to indict suspects at the same time, particularly if they are all part of the same conspiracy or the indictments involve the same conduct. Indictments usually contain a fair amount of information and they are publicly available. Prosecutors don't like to tip their hands earlier than they have to. If Fitzgerald is considering extending the grand jury, it's likely because he learned something new from Judy Miller's testimony that makes him think there is more to investigate. If he doesn't extend the grand jury, I'd expect he'd make his decision regarding indictments by next week.
thanks for your reply, I appreciate that info.
Waiting to learn the truth for two years now, is making me really impatient.
Anonymous@10:21
11b or add to 11a: While on Air Force One, Ari Fleischer sees the memo, per Andrea Mitchell. "We also know that, that paragraph, that document was circulated on Air Force One as the president was flying to Africa, that Ari Fletcher saw it, Colin Powell testified to that."
I'm sure this is why Miller has kept her notebook out of the hands of her editors, and of the three reporters who did the official Times story.
If we see "Valerie Flame" pop up, by name, in the area of her notebook that otherwise appears to cover the June interview, then Scooter's credibility is shot all to hell.
For folks who don't trust Isikoff, the WaPo also reported that the Russert conversation with Libby took place in July:
Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler agreed to a similar interview with Fitzgerald's office earlier this summer. In both Kessler's case and Russert's, prosecutors' questions concerned conversations the reporters had in early July 2003 with Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. Both reporters have said they told Fitzgerald's staff that Libby did not disclose the identity of the CIA employee, Valerie Plame, to them.
This theory looks good, now that Judy has confirmed that she spoke to Libby about Wilson's wife in June.
Tom Maguire
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home