Libby Trial: No Scooter, No Cheney

The news in the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial on Tuesday came as court was shutting down because of a slight snowfall in Washington: neither the defendant nor his onetime boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, will testify in the case. Ted Wells, Libby's lead lawyer, told federal district court Judge Reggie Walton in the afternoon that Team Libby had released Cheney as a potential witness and that Wells had recommended to Libby that they rest their case after the defense calls three minor witnesses on Wednesday (if the judge rules they can appear) and perhaps brings back Meet the Press host Tim Russert. Judge Walton asked Libby if he had accepted his lawyer's advice and did waive his right to testify. Libby stood up in court and replied, "Yes, sir."

The trial will end with a whimper, not a bang. The jurors will not hear the defendant defend his statements to the FBI and the grand jury that investigated the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer. They will not hear him claim that he honestly misremembered facts or that his recollections (as opposed to those of all the prosecution witnesses) are accurate. They will not hear Libby maintain that he was the victim of a--take-your-pick--CIA plot, State Department plot, White House plot or NBC News plot (as Wells has variously suggested throughout the trial). They will not hear Cheney vouch for the integrity of the man whom he recently called "one of the most honest men I've ever met."

Libby's attorneys will argue Libby's innocence (or lack of guilt) by attacking the credibility of Fitzgerald's witnesses, by suggesting Libby was too busy to recall accurately such a minor matter as Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, by maintaining that Libby might have done no worse than confused a couple of phone calls, by contending that because Libby did not leak information on Valerie Wilson to some of the reporters he spoke with, he did not leak it to Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, and Matt Cooper, then of Time.

With the decision not to testify, Libby spares himself the obligation of explaining the convoluted explanation he provided the FBI and grand jury. He told the investigators that although Cheney in early June 2003 had told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, he (Libby) totally forgot this and then on July 11 learned it "anew" when Russert said to him that "all the reporters" knew that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. In Libby's telling, Russert conversation had not reminded him of what Cheney previously told him. Libby essentially claimed he had been struck by total amnesia on this one fact. This was an important point because Libby asserted that when he spoke to Miller and Cooper on July 12, 2003, and mentioned Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection, he was only passing along gossip he had received from Russert--not official (and classified) information he had obtained from Cheney.

Moreover, Libby told the grand jurors that he didn't even know at the time of the leak that Wilson had a wife. Yet Fitzgerald has presented several past and present government officials who testified that in the weeks before the leak they provided official information about Wilson's wife to Libby. And former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified that Libby had told him about Wilson's wife a week before the leak became public in Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column.

How could Libby clarify his FBI and grand jury statements? How could he have testified that he hadn't even known Wilson had a wife? Well, now he won't have to explain. When his lawyers present their closing argument, they will attack the credibility and memory of each prosecution witness and toss out evidence-free speculation about what was really happening behind the scenes regarding the CIA leak--all to confuse, or raise a reasonable doubt. Wells also has suggested he might argue that Russert--contrary to Russert's testimony--did know about Wilson's wife and might have indeed shared this tidbit with Libby.

Cheney is off the hook, too. At the start of the trial, the defense raised the dramatic prospect of the vice president on the stand, but such a move always was problematic. Would Cheney have any credibility as a witness? ("You can trust me: Scooter was so busy helping me run the Iraq war that he failed to testify accurately.") And could Cheney withstand a cross-examination from Fitzgerald, who might have been able to ask Cheney about Cheney's own efforts to gather information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson and to question him about the curious conversations that occurred when Cheney (according to Libby) told Libby that Libby did not have to inform Cheney about Libby's full involvement in the leak episode.

The trial jurors spent three days listening to audio tapes of Libby's grand jury testimony and hearing (in Libby's own voice) what Fitzgerald has claimed to be lies. Many on the jury would probably prefer to hear directly from Libby. Yet his lawyers have concluded that the vice president's former chief of staff cannot be a strong witness in his own defense. It's his right not to testify. And defense attorneys routinely keep clients off the stand. Nevertheless, Libby's decision to remain mute and not submit himself to cross-examination is not without symbolic content.

Before Wells announced that Libby and Cheney would not testify, Libby's defense called to the stand John Hannah, who succeeded Libby as Cheney's national security adviser. And the following exchange--paraphrased because a transcript is not yet available--occurred:

Q: How would you evaluate Scooter Libby's memory?

A: On certain things, Scooter just had an awful memory. There were times too many to count when in the morning we would discuss policy issues, analyses and recommendations and then later in the day he would repeat back to me the same analyses and recommendations and have no idea I had mentioned them to him.

Libby's lawyers and his out-of-court defenders have long suggested that Libby's statements to the FBI and the grand jury were not deliberately deceptive (as Fitzgerald has charged) but merely the result of imperfect recollections held by a fellow consumed with pressing national security matters. Consequently, it was odd that when Libby's attorneys finally had the chance to present a witness who could back up this explanation, there was little punch to the memory defense. Hannah, who was one of Libby's deputies on national security issues at the time of the CIA leak, said little to support his assertion that Libby's memory was occasionally "awful" other than to depict an apparently routine scenario that made it seem like his boss was stealing his ideas.

Hannah was more persuasive on the other front: that Libby was a damn busy man. Under the careful prompting of John Cline, a Libby lawyer, Hannah described Libby's usual day when he was Cheney's Cheney. Libby had to manage a "very heavy" information flow, with memos and material coming to him from ten to twelve special advisers on national security in the vice president's office. He had several person-sized safes filled top to bottom with classified material. He had to prepare for meetings with other government officials and foreign officials; he had to prepare Cheney for meetings with other government officials and foreign officials. His work days began with an early morning intelligence briefing with Cheney and typically did not conclude until 8:00 or 9:00 at night. The job was challenging, Hannah said.

And there were so many weighty affairs of state for Libby to process. Cline walked Hannah through a list of topics previously cleared for public discussion by Judge Walton and government agencies, and he asked Hannah if each subject had been a matter of concern for Libby during the period of May 2003 to March 2004 (from when the Wilson affair started until Libby testified to the grand jury). Was Libby fretting about the proper role and size of Iraqi security forces in post-invasion Iraq and the composition of the government there? Yes, Hannah said: "It was a very important issue for us." Was he worried that the plans of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad for the buildup of the Iraqi police and security forces were insufficient? "Sounds right," Hannah replied. He noted that Libby was a "leader" in the effort to create more robust security plans for Iraq.

Libby was occupied with far more than Iraq, Hannah noted in response to Cline's questions. In June and July 2003, he was monitoring student protests in Iran and Iran's detention and possible harboring of al Qaeda suspects. Not to mention Tehran's nuclear ambitions. He was tracking developments in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Most important, he was doing what he could to defend the United States against al Qaeda and terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Hannah said that senior administration officials, including Libby, were "concerned" that al Qaeda was developing biological weapons and pursuing nuclear weapons. Libby believed, Hannah said, that the US government's contingency plans to defend against WMD attacks were inadequate, and Libby pressed for more action. Libby, according to Hannah, was also deeply immersed in crafting the administration's responses to two foreign policy crises: the arrest of Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq and the rise of unrest in Liberia.

Libby, Hannah testified, managed all these knotty national security matters while serving as Cheney's chief of staff and handling domestic policy issues as well. After Hannah left the stand, Cline told the judge, "We want to paint a picture of a person who was overloaded, who was overwhelmed, who had a full plate."

Fitzgerald's questioning of Hannah was brief. If Cheney's integrity regarding the rationale for the Iraq war was publicly challenged, the prosecutor asked, would it have been important for Libby to respond? "It would be important to push back on those kinds" of attacks," Hannah answered. And, Fitzgerald asked, during the second week in July 2003, when Libby was burdened with the Turkey and Liberia crises and all else that Hannah had mentioned, would it have been easy for Hannah to have had a morning coffee with Libby for an hour to discuss these issues? "It would be harder," Hannah responded. It was obvious what Fitzgerald had in mind: on July 8, 2003, Libby held a morning meeting lasting over an hour with Judith Miller, during which he shared with her White House arguments to back up the administration's case for war and (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In other words, Libby was not too busy protecting America from terrorists that morning to chat confidentially with a reporter who could help him and Cheney conduct damage control.

The too-swamped-with-saving-the-world argument has other problems. In his grand jury testimony, Libby described how he spent considerable time dealing with the Wilson imbroglio and the controversy concerning the administration's prewar use of the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. And a CIA briefer testified earlier in the trial that Libby had met with actor Tom Cruise in June 2003 to discuss Germany's treatment of Scientologists. So Fitzgerald can argue that no matter how overwhelmed Libby was by the big stuff he still found time to fight back on the Wilson matter and talk about Scientology with a Hollywood star.

Closing arguments are now scheduled for Tuesday. Fitzgerald will sum up his narrow case: Libby told investigators he knew nothing certain or official about Wilson's wife at the time of the leak and only shared scuttlebutt with reporters, but the testimony of three journalists and five past and present government officials disputes that. Wells will do all he can to slice and dice the witnesses. He will likely suggest--but not prove--alternative narratives that cast Libby as a victim or bystander. He will not rely on what Libby or Cheney could have told the jury. The two apparently have not much to say that can help Libby.

******

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (64)

1. Why not focus on something important..Hey, how about the guy who leaked the "super secret, double secret" agents name....

   Libby wasn't that guy, right?

   How are book sales?

   Posted by john maasch at 02/13/2007 @ 5:11pm

2. I guess John Maasch hasn't been following the trial very closely. Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him "the 'super secret, double secret' agents name," Valerie Plame, on July 7th, 2003.

   Judy Miller met Libby for breakfast on July 8th, and the notebook she used for that meeting contains the words "Valerie Flame."

   And Robert Novak testified that he talked to Libby on July 9th. On July 11th, he wrote an article that outed Valerie Plame (by that name, instead of using her proper married name of Valerie Wilson).

   Odd set of coincidences, what?

   Posted by Swopa at 02/13/2007 @ 5:21pm

3. SWOPA, don't think it was an odd set of coincidences. Reporters hear different stories from different people and then try to get a consensus on that particular story. In this case, Bob Novak heard it straight from the mouth of Dick Armitage. I wouldn't doubt Novak dropped Ms. Plame's name to get a response from Libby. They do all the time.

   Posted by ACook at 02/13/2007 @ 5:33pm

4. Again, ACook, it helps to pay attention. Armitage's knowledge came from a memo that specifically named "Valerie Wilson." So if Armitage really was Novak's main source, why did Novak use her maiden name... the name under which she did covert work?

   Posted by Swopa at 02/13/2007 @ 5:45pm

5. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Plame?? flame??where's the fire? Oh, sorry....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

   Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 5:45pm

6. Bought and paid disinformers, beware! Swopa is singularly informed about this trial, and -- oops -- he has already demolished your bilious apologies for your paymasters. Go home and find some shame, it might become you!

   Posted by MarkC at 02/13/2007 @ 6:01pm

7. Armitage's knowledge came from a memo that specifically named "Valerie Wilson." So if Armitage really was Novak's main source, why did Novak use her maiden name... the name under which she did covert work?

   Posted by SWOPA

   ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ or maybe he just knows how to do a lexis nexis searchZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

   Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 6:07pm

8. Thanks for the compliment, MarkC... and if it makes the conservatrolls feel any better, I spent about 20 minutes last week making Mr. Corn suffer (in person!) for my interest in the case.

   Speaking of interest, if this topic is so boring to you, DaveBarlett, why do you hang around here making multiple comments? Your very presence telegraphs your dishonesty.

   Posted by Swopa at 02/13/2007 @ 6:17pm

9. "I guess John Maasch hasn't been following the trial very closely"

   how could he, while playing 16 holes of go;f every day. maybe we should ask him about his slice.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 6:50pm

10. golf

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 6:51pm

11. I bet he managed to stay awake for Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings...

    Posted by Balrog at 02/13/2007 @ 6:56pm

12. i noticed that they aren't claiming that plame was not covert anymore--they sort of imply it but they don't come right out and say it--so maybe they follow the trial a little more closely than they admit.

    Posted by pretzel at 02/13/2007 @ 8:00pm

13. if this topic is so boring to you, DaveBarlett, why do you hang around here making multiple comments? Your very presence telegraphs your dishonesty.

    Posted by SWOPA

    Just because I'm bored doesn't mean I'm not paying attention..How the hell do you think I got thru college?? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 8:32pm

14. yep, another one fails to lie about her covert status.

    Posted by pretzel at 02/13/2007 @ 8:35pm

15. And I'm sure the other 87 people in the world really fascinated by this affair would agree.

    Maybe Corn will turn to finding out what was in Sandy Berger's pants now.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 02/13/2007 @ 8:33pm | ignore this person

    pathetic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 8:37pm

16. "But so was CLinton's impeachment. And so was the hand slap Berger got."

    what does this have to do with the subject at hand? NOTHING. this is such a tired attempt to change the subject. I imagine you can do better. I'll be glad to read an honest opinion of yours, but not this drivel.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 8:54pm

17. what?? no more wingnut lies about plame being "just an analyst"??? im shocked, shocked i say.

    Posted by pretzel at 02/13/2007 @ 9:22pm

18. where have all the liars gone? long time passing.

    Posted by pretzel at 02/13/2007 @ 9:41pm

19. No Cheney testimony means....No Cheney perjury....

    which guts 80% of the impeachment talk.

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 10:26pm

20. "I guess John Maasch hasn't been following the trial very closely"

    how could he, while playing 16 holes of go;f every day. maybe we should ask him about his slice.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 6:50pm

    It is 36 holes a day and I tend to draw, or hook somewhat(to the left)...

    I did get my hotel on points, my flight on miles and I won my golf fees on betting, so my trip costs me only food and libations...and it was a grand time...

    I comment only that this is such a non story and non issue except here on the far left....

    FREIHEIT is correct in the mention that Corn at least is trying some digging for facts,... problem is he only uses a far left handed shovel, which makes FREIHEIT correct again, in that the interst in this "story" is on the far left..87 of them and most of the 87 are here on the blog...

    Posted by john maasch at 02/13/2007 @ 10:38pm

21. dammit, DAVE, that ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    CRAP IS oops giving me a migraine! knock it off. i'm trying not to get a migraine...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2007 @ 11:01pm

22. yeah, ZERO, and queen hillary is sounding sadly...uninspiring (euphemism for stale, bullshitty, ass covering, insecure)

    well, at least spring is right around the corner...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2007 @ 11:27pm

23. huge bummer that Cheney won't get to testify with his shotgun. The room is just chock full of lawyers. Heck Libby has 3 or 4.

    Wheeeeeeeee, wicked fun driving home!! 8" of snow, 30mph winds,2 degrees. Get ready Johannes, NYC is next. Weaklings in DC are going to call of the trial?

    anybody else enjoying this "storm"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 12:49am

24. I finally realized that debating with Ponti is like Rob Reiner interviewing , was it Guest or the bass player, in "Spinal Tap".

    "It goes to 11"

    "why not just make 10 louder?"

    "It goes to 11, though"

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 12:55am

25. So Plame's status was CLASSIFIED and she had Non-Official Cover (NOC)? I thought people like Fred Thompson, Byron York, Victoria Toensig and Bob Woodward were claiming the contrary. Ok, so they were wrong.

    These same folks, and the right-wing wurlitzer, says this trial is prosecutorial overreach and much a do about nothing because Fitz didn't charge on the underlying crime. The meme goes like this: there's no crime, just entrapment of a busy and forgetful OVP chief of staff. But the people who make this argument, conveniently forget Fitz's news conference announcing the indictment of Scotter Libby when he explained he was not able to determine who, if anyone, broke the IIPA law because administration officials would not testify honestly to FBI investigators or the Grand Jury. One such person was charged in a five count indictment; two for lying to the FBI, two for lying to the GL and one for obstructing justice?

    Is Libby lying to protect himself? Maybe but his story is so implausible it appears it was crafted to protect his boss, Cheney. Libby learned about Plame and her CIA status from Cheney.

    When this story broke, most Americans thought Saddam attacked the US on 9/11, the aluminum tubes were for Uranuim enrichment of yellowcake from Niger, Iraq had a nuke, and Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague. Now,we ALL know that's a pile of horseshit stacked up by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith and a cabal of indsiders committed to a war against Iraq, in spite of the facts.

    The leak of Plame's ID through the shield of select reporters was the OVPs warning shot across the bow of Wilson and CIA folks who were thinking of putting intelligence before politics.

    Somebody wake up DAVEBARLETT and draw him a conect the dots diagram so he can understand what going on here.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 02/14/2007 @ 02:20am

26. Corn. Swopa. Emptywheel.

    Let's play Jeopardy: Plameology for $1000 Alex.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 02/14/2007 @ 02:21am

27. Does anyone know what could be the harshest sentence "Scooter" could get? I for one believe he should get the maximum the law allows. And he should be put in prison immediately after the verdict. No freedom while his appeal goes though the courts for years until Shrub pardons him on his last day in office. And by the way, Shrub and his comrades need to be put out of office as soon as possible. Shrub must be impeached. Actually, I'd love to see him in prison along with the other profiteers.

    Posted by Dale-Z at 02/14/2007 @ 02:42am

28. Posted by DALE-Z 02/14/2007 @ 02:42am | ignore this person

    it may come as news to you that Libby has not been convicted of anything yet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 08:32am

29. Aaron Russo - The most important interview of our time:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3218585954111617501&q=aaron+russ o+rockefeller&hl=en

    You MUST watch this and share it with EVERYONE.

    A shorter version is here:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=aaron+russ o+rockefeller&hl=en

    The Council On Foreign Relations DID 9/11 The Rockefellers DID 9/11. The "War On Terror" does not exist. "Bin Laden" does not exist.

    If you don't STOP – and take the time to watch this, you cannot ridicule those who risk their own personal security to tell the truth. If you do watch it, and love America, you'll never again ridicule a TRUTHTELLER.

    STOP what you are doing. WATCH THIS INTERVIEW. Then share it with EVERYONE.

    Google Video Search: Historic Interview With Aaron Russo

    Posted by plunger at 02/14/2007 @ 09:13am

30. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/14/2007 @ 08:32am

    DALE-Z is one of the reasons I'm curious about Mr Corn's "wall-to-wall" coverage on this trial.....most "Nation" readers have already made up their minds on Libby's guilt...so what's the point???

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 09:17am

31. No Scooter, No Cheney: No Balls.

    Oh, but let's change the subject. What did Sandy Berger have in his pants? --> Documents that fell out of Fawn Hall's brassiere.

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/14/2007 @ 09:21am

32. Bush agenda:

    1. Punish anyone who refuses to lie

    2. Sacrifice Americans for Haliburton to get rich

    3. "Lose" truckloads of pallets of $100 bills

    4. Lose a war based on lies, start a bigger one, repeat

    5. Mail some anthrax to the Senate then help the Bin Ladens escape

    Posted by conshame at 02/14/2007 @ 09:27am

33. When one reads CONSHAMEs simple list it becomes clear and easy to label far leftys like him/her a loon. To believe people lay awake at night in order to bring about a plan such as this list nuts. Spend years runnnig for president, planning a log term lie just to start a war, hoping to get your company contracts that pass money back down to you(even when you no longer work there,)to what end? get money in the form of captial gains and stock bonus? It would be eaier to just take one of those pallets you think are gone, and ship it to Texas......loons.

    It is much easier to make money in the market place than to go thru the list...especially if you already have some wealth...it just shows that CONSHAME has no money and is going nowhere in his/her job...sooooo, now the "rich" are planning schemes to keep him/her down and ruin the country..

    CONSHAME, you make it easy to assign you a seat in the kook section.

    Any other lists?

    Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2007 @ 09:47am

34. RIOexctremetoPOLLO. Fred Thompson refused to believe Nixon did ANYTHING wrong, till it bit him in his Hollywood acting ass. Search out some videos of him on the congressional committee obstructing justice in the 1970's.

    Great source there RIO. Right up there with aluminum tubes and Atta in Czeck.

    Baaaah, baaaahh.

    Shearing to take place at the nest fundraiser. Bring your $1000/plate.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:15am

35. Any other lists?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2007 @ 09:47am

    I have lists of chimpy and Deadeye lies, as well as lists of when they have been dead wrong about NO, Iraq, Social Security etc. I could also come up with a good list of convicted republicans, including several from the executive branch. Care to open your mind? Or will your mind be a metaphor for the guy whose chute didn't open? Will you land in the blueberry bush of history?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:19am

36. next fundraiser. The nest will be lined with $100's.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:20am

37. As RioexcrememtodePOLLO pays so much attention to what AlQaida says, here is a recent quote:

    "Bush suffers from an addictive personality and was an alcoholic," Ayman al-Zawahiri said in the audiotape, a transcript of which was released by the Washington-based SITE Institute. "I don't know his present condition . . . but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults -- lying and gambling."

    On the tape, Zawahiri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's "most notorious liars."

    --Even cave dwellers get it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:23am

38. Lets add to the list one "Dusty" Foggo!!

    By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 14, 2007; Page A01

    The CIA's former executive director and a defense contractor were indicted yesterday by a San Diego grand jury for allegedly corrupting the intelligence agency's contracts, marking one of the first criminal cases to reach into the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East.

    Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a longtime logistics officer who was the CIA's top administrator from November 2004 until last May, was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser.

    .....While the probe has threatened to sweep in other members of Congress, some uncertainty surrounds it. A key U.S. attorney involved in it -- Carol C. Lam in San Diego -- has been fired by the administration for unspecified "performance-related" deficiencies along with a handful of other federal prosecutors. Lam oversaw the Foggo investigation and is to leave Thursday. The head of the local FBI field office praised Lam's performance and said her firing appeared to be "political," an accusation that the Justice Department has denied.

    -----Nah, chimpy would NEVER hinder an investigation for political purposes. He has brought credibility back.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:40am

39. "It said that Wilkes paid a company called Shirlington Limousine to chauffeur Cunningham around Washington. He also allegedly financed lavish meals and vacations for Cunningham, flew him around on the company jet, bought him tickets to the Super Bowl, and paid for two prostitutes for the lawmaker on Aug. 15 and 16, 2003, at the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel in Hawaii.

    "Pursuant to Cunningham's request," the indictment states, "Wilkes arranged for the Congressman to get a different prostitute for the second evening."

    Buwaaahahahaha.

    Lets hear from the nutters about the liberal america haters now. baaaa baaaa.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:46am

40. --Even cave dwellers get it.

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/14/2007 @ 10:23am | ignore this person

    watch it Bub, those guys from the Geico commercials will come after you.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 10:52am

41. "Pursuant to Cunningham's request," the indictment states, "Wilkes arranged for the Congressman to get a different prostitute for the second evening."

    variety is the spice of life.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 10:53am

42. Mr. Corn: No Cheney? I smell a pardon!

    Posted by anluk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:54am

43. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/14/2007 @ 10:52am

    Or the followers of cave dwellers that wrote a black book.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:57am

44. Funny how they want to deny us our spices, but live like they have their own little bouget garni.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:00am

45. Crab,

    we all have lists we believe to be true..and that alone does not m ake them true..your list or mine...they become beliefs and beliefs may or may not be true.

    John

    Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2007 @ 11:06am

46. "not gonna talk about it". "Not gonna talk about it" Chimpy on Plame leak.

    Flip, flop.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:42am

47. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/14/2007 @ 11:06am

    I think the list of indicted and convicted repubs is pretty set in stone.

    The list of things chimpCo has been wrong about are accurate. "Last throes", "aluminum tubes", "there will not be a guerilla war". Want more? Or do you want to end up in the blueberry bush of history?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:48am

48. "the sedef will be here for my entire term" or something to that effect.

    How do you make that NOT a lie, spoken as it was 2 days before he fired him? Kool-aid?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:49am

49. "When George W. Bush campaigned for the White House, he was such a novice in foreign policy that he couldn't name the president of Pakistan and momentarily suggested he thought the Taliban was a rock-and-roll band. But he relied upon a group called the Vulcans -- an inner circle of advisers with a long, shared experience in government, dating back to the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and first Bush administrations. After returning to power in 2001, the Vulcans were widely expected to restore U.S. foreign policy to what it had been under George H. W. Bush and previous Republican administrations. Instead, the Vulcans put America on an entirely new and different course, adopting a far-reaching set of ideas that changed the world and America's role in it. Rise of the Vulcans is nothing less than a detailed, incisive thirty-five-year history of the top six members of the Vulcans -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice -- and the era of American dominance they represent. It is the story of the lives, ideas and careers of Bush's war cabinet -- the group of Washington insiders who took charge of America's response to September 11 and led the nation into its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"

    Source: Distributed by Syndetic Solutions Inc.; Summary of book The Rise of the Vulcans by Jim Mann.

    I am wondering. Maybe somebody can help me here. I thought that the compromising of national security of United States by government officials (or citizens for that matter) could be basis for a charge of treason? Looks like there may be motivation and intent here. I think national security encomprises privileged information such as identity of CIA and making sure we act on the best intelligence available. Why haven't these charges been considered?

    Posted by OneVote at 02/14/2007 @ 1:20pm

50. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 1:16pm

    Get a clue Liberty. If anyone is using a different definition, it is you. The Da Vinci Code is no longer on the current best seller list, yet nobody would cries foul when people still refer to it as one.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 1:34pm

51. I'd say with Cheney not being called by the defense....one of two possibilities...maybe both-

    1. They've decided that the case is lost...or even won...and there's no point in putting a wildly unpopular witness on the stand for no good reason.

    2. The "fix is in" on a pardon. They got a call from a guy, who was speaking for a guy, who was speaking for a "high Administration official"...that if Vice-Pres. Cheney "wasn't disturbed this week", that he and the Prez were working on a series of "Christmas pardons"...one of which would be timed to coincide with (as early as) the first Democratic debate, where Hillary, Obama and Edwards go at each other for the first time....or (as late as) Hillary winning the Iowa caucus.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 1:43pm

52. 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;

    On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

    In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;

    On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

    On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the CIA;

    [and yet, Libby's Grand Jury testimony is that]

    On July 10, hearing it for the first time from Tim Russert, Libby was surprised to learn that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

    Does anybody out there believe that Libby's statement to the Grand Jury about the July 10 conversation with Russert was not intentionally misleading?

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/14/2007 @ 2:00pm

53. 18 USC § 2381. Treason PART I - CRIMES

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

    Seems to me that outing of Valerie Plame could be construed as providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/14/2007 @ 2:18pm

54. Posted by ONEVOTE 02/14/2007 @ 2:18pm

    Essentially, you're trying to "re-fight" "Fitzmas-2005".

    The whole "treason" argument, even indictment under the IIP Act fell apart when Fitzgerald came up with no charges against Rove, Cheney, and had to get perjury and obstruction of justice on Libby.

    Libby's "it"....it goes no further, atleast not in the courts. And Fitzgerald isn't prosecuting him for treason or even violating the IIPA.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 2:26pm

55. Thanks Mask...I need to Google Fitzmas-2005 to get up to speed on this issue. Unbelievable. So much crap going on its hard to follow it all.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/14/2007 @ 3:25pm

56. Liberty,

    Taking editorial liberties again. As to No. 3 on your list, the questioner did NOT ask Bush what action HE would take, or if he would fire the leaker:

    (from your link) Q: Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

    The first time Bush was asked about what action he would take was on June 10, 2004 and here is what he said:

    Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

    THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

    Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

    On July 19, 2005, Bush backed off and said, "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 3:54pm

57. Posted by ONEVOTE 02/14/2007 @ 3:25pm

    No problem, happy to help.

    "Plame-gate" has spiraled DOWNwards from a "near-Watergate" to a "slightly-more corrupt White Water". Despite claims and hyperbole, the facts are the facts....

    Fitzgerald COULD not get indictments of violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

    Does that mean it WASN'T violated by Libby...maybe Rove...maybe Cheney?...no. But in the court of law, and even for the most part in the court of public opinion, it's turning out to be a dud.

    Libby, to continue the analogy, is a "harsher" "Susan McDougall"...and likely as not, if he plays the good caporegime and keeps his mouth shut....he walks out of Seogoville Minimum Security in less than a year...and into a cushy "Assistant Vice-Presidency" at Halliburton by Valentine's Day 2009 (if not sooner).

    And Mr Corn can do all the weekly updates he wants....right upto sentencing (again, still a chance Libby will be found not guilty...but willing to go with it)....but that's the way it goes down.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:11pm

58. Posted by HMAN23 02/14/2007 @ 3:54pm

    HMAN, LVLIB is somewhat right. Bush has plenty of "wiggle room" for "Plame-gate" and firing people.

    As I noted, NOBODY has been charged with violating the IIPA....ergo, he CAN say he is keeping his word, because there's nobody accused OR convicted of leaking Plame's name in a court of law....and he doesn't need to fire people "under suspicion".

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:14pm

59. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/14/2007 @ 3:28pm

    Gee, are these leftist lies, or are they LVLIBERTY1's usual twisting of the truth? His "Lies"

    1.) Has anybody stated this? I've seen people say she couldn't continue her job in the Counterproliferation unit after she was outed, but that's not the same thing as not being able to work at the Agency. Hell, Don Rumsfeld still has a desk at the Pentagon, and he got the boot months ago.

    2). Nothing in Plame's complaint says anything about when she was covert; if her status was "classified", how does the old gasbag know how long ago she was covert? Did he get it from another Libby Leak?

    3). Yeah, we knew Bush wasn't going to fire anybody. All you had to do was listen to the language he used to know it was "manufactured outrage" for public consumption. Sort of like his false bluster about how he was going to bring UBL "to justice".

    4). See, folks, we're all propagating a leftist lie, when it's BOB NOVAK who knows the truth. Mr. Corn pointed out early in his reportage on this matter that it would be very hard to bring an indictment on the outing; more likely, somebody would get indicted on construction of justice charges... Hello, Scooter! Truth is, about a half-dozen people outed Plame. Now, LVLIBERTY1 would have you believe that this is a leftist lie, but all of the "outers" were members of the Bush administration.

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/14/2007 @ 4:19pm

60. The following is an excerpt from http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/10/wh100703b.html

    "If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

    LVLIBERTY1, you just got slammed...again. Rightwing liar.

    Posted by nathanhale at 02/14/2007 @ 4:39pm

61. Liberty -

    I'll agree to some extent with Mask - that Bush does have some wiggle room. Personally, this particular line on Bush ("he said he would fire the leakers") is not very high on my list of Bush outrages. However, I do take issue with the absolute position you often take regarding the facts of many things discussed on this board and certainly enjoy pointing that out now and again.

    While he has "wriggle" room, Bush HAS changed his tune on the reprimand (if any) that would come from his office on the "leakers."

    Regarding the first quote, you implied that Bush was asked if he would fire someone if the leak came from his office - "Bush said from the first time he was asked, if someone leaked and they broke the law, they will be fired." Your words. Not mine.

    June 10, 2004 was the first time Bush was directly asked if he would fire someone who leaked the information. Bush said, "Yes." Even accepting your premise that, in 2003, Bush said he would only fire someone who broke the law, his statement on June 10 represented a change. If you are honest, you cannot deny that.

    The July 2005 statement obviously represented a change from his June 10 statement.

    So, while I do not think this "lie" rises to an impeachable offense, your claim that Bush has remained consistent on this point is baseless.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:05pm

62. Liberty -

    I'll agree to some extent with Mask - that Bush does have some wiggle room. Personally, this particular line on Bush ("he said he would fire the leakers") is not very high on my list of Bush outrages. However, I do take issue with the absolute position you often take regarding the facts of many things discussed on this board and certainly enjoy pointing that out now and again.

    While he has "wriggle" room, Bush HAS changed his tune on the reprimand (if any) that would come from his office on the "leakers."

    Regarding the first quote, you implied that Bush was asked if he would fire someone if the leak came from his office - "Bush said from the first time he was asked, if someone leaked and they broke the law, they will be fired." Your words. Not mine.

    June 10, 2004 was the first time Bush was directly asked if he would fire someone who leaked the information. Bush said, "Yes." Even accepting your premise that, in 2003, Bush said he would only fire someone who broke the law, his statement on June 10 represented a change. If you are honest, you cannot deny that.

    The July 2005 statement obviously represented a change from his June 10 statement.

    So, while I do not think this "lie" rises to an impeachable offense, your claim that Bush has remained consistent on this point is baseless.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:07pm

63. ""Why Cheney Can't Be Prosecuted

    "So I ask you Mr. Fitzgerald, why isn't Dick Cheney being indicted for treason?"

    This is what the Seymour Logan Professor of Law at the University of Chicago thinks:

    "The text of the Constitution and relevant history reveal that 1) impeachable offenses are not defined in the Constitution; 2) "high crimes and misdemeanors" are an historically well-defined category of offenses aimed specifically against the state, for which removal from office is mandatory upon conviction by the Senate; 3) Congress has the power to impeach and remove civil officers for a range of offenses other than high crimes and misdemeanors; and 4) the Senate can impose sanctions less severe than removal from office--censure, for example--on civil officers convicted of such other offenses. The textual and historical support for these propositions is powerful, if not overwhelming.

    When impeachment is correctly understood, the question of the President's immunity from judicial process takes on a different light. There is neither a constitutional basis nor a sound footing in policy for any official action against a sitting President other than impeachment.

    JOSEPH ISENBERGH Yale Law and Policy Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2000

    Isenbergh published this right after Clinton lost his immunity defense in the Paula Jones civil trial that led to the Lewinski circus. His analysis is based upon constitutional separation of powers, and probably applies with equal force to a Vice President. The Vice President is at the apex of the coequal executive branch of government and no other branch, such as the courts of the judicial branch, possesses the constitutional power to exert its authority over the other, except as provided by the constitution.

    If the Libby trial makes enough evidence public to cause an outcry for action against Cheney, impeachment offers our only way to act against him. Courts simply won't allow criminal prosecution of him while he remains in office.

    Well, if we get Dick, it will be that much easier to go for George. You know. The first one's the hardest. I certainly like the possibilities this line of Fitzgerald's prosecution opens up.

    The 25th Amendment says a Vice Presidential vacancy shall be filled by nomination of the President, subject to majority confirmation in the House and Senate. That means hearings on both sides of the Capitol. They could also impeach Bush before confirming Uncle Dick's successor. Anyway, there will be hearings. Might be fun.""

    Source: The Smirking Chimp; February 2, 2007; SmirkingChimp.com

    ITS GOOD TO BE KING AND TO HAVE FAITHFUL AND LOYAL SERVANTS!

    If there were no treasonable acts at issue here, or potentially at issue, then why request immunity for testimony?

    MASK...looks like your take on no further action on this charade is right on the money. I vaguely remember hoping that Fitzgerald was going to nail both Rove and Cheney back in 2005. I remember being sorely disappointed that Libby was going to be the predictable fall guy. All the talk of getting Libby and Cheney on the stand for this trial was a pipe dream pure and simple. Seem like our Congress could press the issue further, but you know, they have got more important issues to address such as the upcoming 2008 election. Such great political theatre!! Just another day in the MATRIX.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/14/2007 @ 6:03pm

64. No need to refute LUVShalftruths, well done by the rest.

    Lower the bar, Chimp will clear it. If not, lower the bar some more.

    SOS. Plame was NOC. She could no longer perform her duties. The CIA called for the Spec Counsel, not Wilson, Chimp won't give us the intel from Britain, just hides behind national security. The Brits gave something to Chimpy about Niger, many people knew it was crap. They were ignored. Just like anyone that ever had a clue.

    More sheep. A sheep that is also a shepherd. Sneaky, they are.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 9:46pm