Plamegate just got...weird -- and Bob Woodward is why.

When you get so irate & defensive over the fact that you got played big time that you're openly arguing with an NPR host, you got problems. The transcript isn't nearly as fun as the actual audio.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013135.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/16/14442/211

Woodward isn't responsible for it all, this is simply more evidence of a conspiracy. There was a coordinated effort by the administration to leak Plame's identity to multiple journalists and the fact that bits and pieces of it are still coming out simply highlights the ongoing obstruction of justice.

Did you read all the statements that have been filed? Or do you just make the assumption that the indictment is an incontrivertable sign of guilt?

Bad phrasing on my part. You'd think that Scooter could have just said twice: "I heard it from Bob Woodward" and he would have been clean! In his statement, it doesn't sound like Woodward himself can even say for sure that he didn't discuss the case with Libby.

Or am I missing something?

Anyway, my point was that this was a "speaking" indictment--Fitzgerald put a *lot* more in the indictment than he needed to to simply present the case, enough to demonstrate that he's not going to have any trouble proving that Libby lied under oath. I'm not talking about anything else than that!

But it will take a mighty straight-faced jury to focus exclusively on that if the defense can bring in a parade of reporters that may have, directly or indirectly, put the Wilson and wife story in Libby's ear."

His point--and mine, ultimately--is that an "ironclad" indictment does not in any way equate with an ironclad guilty verdict. You know that, O.J. knows that, Bill Clinton knows that, and so does anyone else who's "gotten off on a technicality" (one of my favorite, all-time stupid phrases) or a bad jury. And in this case, the argument can be made that Woodward's statements have weakened Fitzgeralds case to some degree, or at least gave the defense team more room to move--in the words of the aformentioned Tom McGuire, "the defense can have fun with an updated version of the old Watergate question - 'What else did Fitzgerald not know, and when did he not know it?'"

Also, what's all this about the real reason for them outing had to do with Plame's group doing investigations into whether certain Admin groups or the CIA were trying to plant VX in iraq for the UN Inspectors to find? Or is that just even more paranoid bits than usual?

I seriously doubt that's true and they would have all had to get their stories a little better coordinated a couple of years ago for this to work.

If nothing else, one would say this complicates everything further and prolongs the whole investigatin' thing.

hey waitamin, how is this bit some unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky, irrational hope? Fitzgerald empaneled another crew, and actually said "This investigation is ongoing," right?

I mean, this whole latest dealybob is because the investigation "is very much absolutely certainly is still alive." That's how Woodward got called in to testify. One would think that dead/stagnant investigative processes would not still be subpeonaing folks to give new testimony, such testimony even that made front page news(causing others to pronounce its death).

Who's being the more irrational and strained in their hopes here? Did that first friday of indictment bring down the entire Admin like some leftie folks hoped? Nope. Did that first friday not result in any indictments and completely exonerate all parties involved, thus showing that anyone who ever dares question Dear Leader is overtly treasonous? Nope.

I didn't realize it was a contest of hopes, but that's an interesting way to change the subject.

I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm wondering why you put that one bit the way you did. You called it "the eternal leftwing hope," as if it were some utopian ideal, impossible to achieve. "Eternal hope" is a phrase usually associated with such momentous tasks as to require generations working on them(peace on earth, good Tom Arnold movies, etc). Not immediate goals that can be reached within a 90-day trial, say.

I don't see it necessarily a contest of hopes, even though both sides have desires(both grandiose, irrational or not) to which they hold and/or cling. The extra fun bit is that each side sees the other as hopelessly grasping at disintegrating straws, as if it were the last act of desperate men(or Henry V).

Only, you know, the whole investigation is still actually happening, which would grant a probability above zero that somebody else will get indicted. That currently doesn't grant the higher favor towards the whole "Fitzgerald will just go away and we'll never have to consider him again" or "This is not a big story for the American People" crowd. As gabbneb noted.

It just seems like Woodward doing this shit is glommed onto as some last-minute saving grace by these guys desperate trying to prevent the last wheel coming off the cart(though it would seem, by this point, as if this particular cart has six wheels, Bullitt-stylee). Thus the blog headline you posted, that this is "stealing Fitzmas."

Gabbneb knows that the indictment doesn't equate guilt or a conviction or anything else other than an executive summary of the prosecution's case. Far be it from me to defend the indefensible, but it is plausible that any anti-Fitizism is related to how Woodward's testimony (of which is yet to be seen, most notably in who he named as his source) could weaken the prosecution's case and by that I mean make it harder to get a conviction of the charges brought.

So let's be specific here: the pro-Fitz hopes are not pinned to the indictment (they already got that for Libby) but for conviction of those charges. Which is why, of course, leftists are hoping that nothing that Woodward testified could possibly have lessened the chances for the latter. Leftists are hoping that not only Woodward but the continuing investigation will bring not only Rove's head but Cheney's.

No one on the right is in denial that the investigation is still continuing but you can't really blame them for being surprised at Fitz taking so long to bring in Woodward. Woodward is, you know, probably only the most famous reporter in Washington who deals with all the big names ("Senior Administration Officials") all the time.

That doesn't reflect poorly on Fitzgerald. It highlights the fact that the administration and other people involved are not cooperating with his investigation and in my opinion strengthens the impression that there is bigtime obstruction of justice going on.

And how is Woodward supposed to play into this, Don? Care to theorize?

It shouldn't matter how it adds up in regard to the case against Libby. I'm assuming that Libby has been indicted for perjury because he made statements under oath that either contradict known facts or contradict other statements he made under oath. At this point if Woodward comes out with yet another contradictory story that only seems to point to more lies right?

Interesting that you, a criminal defense attorney, is asking me to theorize on this. I would suspect that you would be the theorizer on this angle unless, of course, you are just going to take what the indictment says as unassailable evidence. Are you always this trusting of the prosecution?

Withdraw the Libby indictment
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 17, 2005

Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.
However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.
In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty. Moreover, as argued by Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey in an article appearing on today's op-ed page, under the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/17/93214/532

Touche, you dope. Give me a break. Apparently you don't have anything to add to this discussion other than just taking random potshots that don't have any bearing on anything. But I'll bite: no, obviously I don't. But Libby's not paying me, either. Just because I'm a defense attorney doesn't mean that I automatically distrust what every prosecutor alleges. Once again, have you actually *read* the indictment?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

"6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

* * * *

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003:
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12, 2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.

* * * *

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked fortheCIA,nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:
• In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division;
• On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
• On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
• On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed “Joe Wilson” and “Valerie Wilson” with his CIA briefer, in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger;
• On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;"

Once again, can I ask you to speculate how on earth Woodward's involvement changes this? EITHER LIBBY KNEW ABOUT VALERIE PLAME WHEN HE TALKED TO RUSSERT, COOPER, AND MILLER, OR HE DIDN'T. I don't think anyone in the world believes the latter, but that's what he told the grand jury.

Do you tell your clients that, too? Upthread, you told us you don't assume things. Which is it?

Who's the dope here: the person (me) who has been pointing out in this thread that in a legal sense, all we really know for sure is in a document (the indictment) provided by the prosecution; or the other person (you) who, despite being a criminal defense attorney, continues to maintain that the case is closed. Did you take Ken Starr's side with the same vigor? "Libby's not my client" is a pathetic excuse for not giving what could be an informed opinion on how Woodward's testimony could affect things. But I like how you've distilled Fitzgerald's case into one line--I'm sure that kind of nuance is something that the feds will want to throw at the jury.

Woodward's involvement could affect things because Fitzgerald didn't know about Woodward when he indicted Libby. What else didn't Fitzgerald know? What did Woodward testify? Who told Woodward? Who else was telling people? I don't know the ins-and-outs of perjury in the federal code (have you read that, or do you just occupy yourself with the indictment and and not bother with the statutes of the case) but it would seem to me that anything coming in after the indictment that is relevant to the case gives cause for hope on both sides. Unless, of course, your only hope is that Libby et al are frog marched no matter what evidence might be advanced.

Um, lots? That's kind of the whole point. It's called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. "Hey Archibald Cox you didn't know we had these tape recordings, ha ha, you lose." Not quite.

What did Woodward testify? Who told Woodward? Who else was telling people?

That's precisely what we're all asking. You think these questions are somehow good for Libby and the rest of the administration?

The arguments you've advanced in this thread don't really seem tethered to reality. Do you really think that Fitzgerald would have DICK CHENEY mentioning Plame's status to Libby if he didn't have strong evidence of that? Or do you think that his recitation of Libby's statements made under oath to investigators and the grand jury is somehow false? I suppose it possible those both of those allegations could be false--I just think it's FUCKING STUPID to doubt them, and I try not to be in the business of doing FUCKING STUPID things. See, if they were false, this prosecution would be COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS, and Fitzgerald would be looking at ethical sanctions and disgrace; he's employed by a Republican Justice Department, remember?

As for Ken Starr, I don't recall much one way or the other, but I don't remember thinking any of his indictments were this strong; the Webb Hubble ones may have been, but the Julia Steele one certainly wasn't. It would have been laughable for him to try and indict Clinton (you will recall that he didn't) -- I know this because I actually do understand the federal perjury statute, despite your assholish implication. I'm not going to bother to explain to you why, but it has to do with a concept called "materiality" that you haven't demonstrated you'd be capable of understanding. Anyway, I assume you're just trying to argue that I'm making a political argument; guess what? I'm NOT.

In any event, as Walter notes above, it seems that the answers to all of the questions you ask are I) irrelevant to the prosecution of Libby (although they may be relevant to sentencing), II) bad for Libby's case. It's pretty obvious, really, unless you're just arguing the opposite because you're getting paid to do so, or because you're arguing for argument's sake.

You say you don't make assumptions...and there you go again. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I've hired more lawyers than you have. Not only have I retained them on a personal level, but on a corporate level as well. I can't say I've ever had the need for a criminal defense attorney, but among immediate family members and neighbors, I conservatively know a dozen practicing attorneys who specialize in that area. I'm impressed you made it through law school and passed the bar, but frankly nothing on this thread suggests that your legal advice is remotely better than the kind I've paid for. You're so busy bragging about how much you know that the only way you can admit that the prosecution's case isn't ironclad is if it's "FUCKING STUPID."

For example:

Sometimes, when the case against your client is too strong, the best advice a lawyer can give is to tell the client to MAKE A DEAL.

Oh, so you know the case against Libby? Your advice, by merely reading the indictment, is to MAKE A DEAL. I've never seen L.A. Law, but that sounds pretty lightweight to me. What do you charge for advice like that?

The arguments you've advanced in this thread don't really seem tethered to reality.

The only arguments (or even opinions) that you've advanced have been parroting dingbats like Yglesias who base their entire interpretation of the case on the indictment. You don't know what the statements that were made under oath were, only that the prosecutor says that there were discrepancies. More of the same assuming that you say you never do.

Anyway, I assume you're just trying to argue that I'm making a political argument

No, I assume that you're making an argument based on one thing (the indictment) and reinforcing it with your political hopes.

it seems that the answers to all of the questions you ask are I) irrelevant to the prosecution of Libby (although they may be relevant to sentencing), II) bad for Libby's case.

So the answers are both "irrelevant" and "bad". I don't really understand that bit of legal interpretation, so I guess I'll just assume that you meant something else.

I don't want to put words into Jay's mouth but presumably Woodward's testimony could be "irrelevant to the prosecution of Libby" because it doesn't change the false statements that Libby already made under oath. At the same time this new information could possibly be "bad for Libby's case" because his defense seems to be built around the assertion that "all of the journalists knew" and yet here's another example of a journalist being told about Plame by an administration official. So this information could theoretically be irrelevant to one side and bad for the other since the prosecution and the defense have two very different jobs. What's good or bad for one side doesn't automatically become a part of the other side's case does it?

No, but it's hard to think that if they are irrelevant that they could then be bad.

My assumption was that he meant to say that Woodward's comments are irrelevant but if they are relevant, they are bad.

You don't know what the statements that were made under oath were, only that the prosecutor says that there were discrepancies. More of the same assuming that you say you never do.

Your whole argument boils down to "we don't know what the evidence is, so we can't say anything." I addressed this silly argument in my post--you chose to ignore it. Do you really think that Fitzgerald would have put those in an indictment if he couldn't support them given how little he stands to gain and how much he stands to lose? I suggest you ask your dozen defense lawyers what they think about that. Ask them whether this indictment looks different than most indictments they've seen. Ask them why. Ask them anything!

The fact that you insist upon maligning my "advice" (of course, this is not advice) says very little about me and a whole lot about you. If you think that "make a deal" is always lightweight advice, once again, I suggest that you don't know jack shit about lawyers, and you should ask your dozen defense attorneys about that. Corporate attorneys mostly know how to draft documents and organize deals; they're not litigators. Still, ask them about this. I don't know any of them, but I'm willing to bet they're going to give you a different answer than the one you're advancing on this thread.

Do you know how many criminal cases go to trial, Don? Care to hazard a guess? You know a dozen criminal defense attorneys? Wow. I know hundreds. You've hired a dozen attorneys? I've represented hundreds of clients. I'm not bragging--rather, you're talking out of your ass. Just admit it and move on.

No, my whole argument boils down to, "we haven't seen the whole case, so we can't say it's ironclad." We can say whatever we want, and we can continue to speculate. Or not.

As for the rest of your post, it seems that we are headed down a mutually antagonistic path of personal insults--I apologize for yanking your chain or intimating you might suck as a lawyer. If you wanna continue this discussion with me it's probably best that we do it over email.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8DV24IO0.html

here's a similar article from Reuters

President Bush departed from Mongolia at 3:30 am ET. He arrives back at the White House at 8:45 pm ET after stopping briefly mid-day in Alaska.

Former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby has offered some new insights into his expected defense on perjury, obstruction, and false statements charges in the CIA leak case. And his defense is: I forgot. Or I misremembered. Or both. In an affidavit released today, Libby's lawyer, Ted Wells, argues that "Given the urgent national security issues that commanded Mr. Libby's attention, it is understandable that he may have forgotten or misremembered relatively less significant events. Such relatively less important events include alleged snippets of conversation about Valerie Plame Wilson's employment status."

In the affidavit, Wells includes a portion of Libby's grand jury testimony from March 5, 2004:

I get a lot of information during the course of a day....I tend to get between 100 and 200 pages of material a day that I'm supposed to read and understand and I -- you know, I start at 6:00 in the morning and I go to 8:00 or 8:30 at night, and most of that is meetings. So a lot of information comes through to me, and I can't possibly recall all the stuff that I think is important, let alone other stuff that I don't think is as important....I apologize if there's some stuff that I remember and some I don't, but it's -- I'm just trying to tell you what I do in fact remember.

It seems likely that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will respond that Libby in fact said he quite specifically remembered the relatively less significant events about which he is accused of giving false testimony.