Fitzgerald ''better" have Proof for "original" indictment

[Simon W. Moon]

And when and what they already knew. For instance Andrea Michell went on national TV and stated, about a year ago, that all the reporters working the DC beat knew who she was, who she was married to and that she worked at the CIA. Guess who her boss was, Russert. He was in charge of the DC beat. So it brings into question HIS testimony as to whether he heard it from Libby or he already knew and perhaps Libby did hear it FIRST from him and then from Cheney or other sources inside the WH. This think was going like wildfire then.

I'm not sure where you are with this.
Libby's in trouble for saying that he had only heard it from reporters.
The other stuff that you're writing about is immaterial to his testimony that he had only heard about Mrs. Wilson etc from reporters. It doesn't matter how many people did or did not know about Mrs. Wilson etc. What matters is that Libby said he had only heard about it from reporters when this was not the case.

About what he told reporters and when so what he told them and what they told him and when are important questions to that matter which IMO has turned into a non-story.

No, it's about him telling investigators and the GJ that the only info he had was from reporters.

And the same goes to each or your multiple response which failed to address any of the points made.

I addressed them by pointing out that they were extraneous, irrelevant and immaterial.

Wilson first began leaking in June and that's when the buzz started. Recall Wilson is the only one who really "leaked" in this matter.

The time period in question is how long it took Mr. Libby to forget that he had at least a month-long series of conversations re the Wilson's, CIA, Niger etc. This means that the time period began when this series of Libby's conversations ended and then ran until Libby gave his account to investigators.
It's not Wilson's memory that is a part of the public defense of Libby. It's the allegations that Libby has a faulty memory that's a part of the public defense of Libby.

It only took Libby about three months to forget his series of convos, etc.

 

[Stinger]

I'm not sure where you are with this.
Libby's in trouble for saying that he had only heard it from reporters.
The other stuff that you're writing about is immaterial to his testimony that he had only heard about Mrs. Wilson etc from reporters. It doesn't matter how many people did or did not know about Mrs. Wilson etc. What matters is that Libby said he had only heard about it from reporters when this was not the case.

I don't accept everyone else as having told the truth except for Libby. And until he gets on the stand and gives testimony, and Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters, we don't really know what he said and what his case is. Perhaps he did hear it first from reporters, they were his source, and after he heard it and others had heard and then they discussed it, it wasn't about "sources" anymore. Source to me is the FIRST place he heard it. I don't think we are sure who and when that was. And yes what I am writing is salient to that point.

No, it's about him telling investigators and the GJ that the only info he had was from reporters.

The only or just the first, yes Cheney may have said something to him about it, he may have heard it from some others, but his ONLY "source" may have been a reporter. Once everyone knew there were no more "sources" so it is a matter of who he heard it from first and when. And as i said I find it curious what Andrea Mitchell says and what Russert said.

I addressed them by pointing out that they were extraneous, irrelevant and immaterial.

Wanna bet they all get into the courtroom?

The time period in question is how long it took Mr. Libby to forget that he had at least a month-long series of conversations re the Wilson's, CIA, Niger etc. This means that the time period began when this series of Libby's conversations ended and then ran until Libby gave his account to investigators.

Yep and he has a problem with that.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I don't accept everyone else as having told the truth except for Libby.

Such acceptance is not required. Since you have read the indictment you must remember that there's more than merely "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters"

And until he gets on the stand and gives testimony, and Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters, we don't really know what he said and what his case is.

The fact that Libby said that he had only heard aobut it from the reporters is not related to what he told the reporters. Regardless of what Libby may or may not have told the reporters, he told the investigators and the GJ that he had only heard about the Wilsons etc from reporters.

This is some of the evidence that actually is against him:

On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.
​

So here we have the reports from an Under Secretary of State and whoever he directed to prepare the report.

On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.
​

I feel confident that the transfer of classified documents via fax requires some sort of paperwork.

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.

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.

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.

On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.

Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic (2003-06-19), LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such information was not widely known.​

The list of conspirators against Libby grows.
So far, in addition to "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters," we have:
1) an Undersecretary of State;
2) the CIA folks in charge of faxing classified info;
3) a senior CIA officer;
4) a CIA briefer;
5) the White House Press secretary;
6) Libby's Principal Deputy;
7) and, possibly even the Vice President himself.

Perhaps these seven entities got together with "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters" and concocted this plot to make Mr. Libby look bad. Perhaps they all arrived at the idea independently.
Or perhaps there's a simpler explanation that we should look at first before we go concocting conspiracy theories involving the CIA, the INR, the DoS, the VPotUS, the WH Press Secretary and "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters."
YMMV.

Perhaps he did hear it first from reporters, they were his source, and after he heard it and others had heard and then they discussed it, it wasn't about "sources" anymore. Source to me is the FIRST place he heard it. I don't think we are sure who and when that was. And yes what I am writing is salient to that point.

By your figuring folks can only have one "source" for all info related to a particular subject? Even though Mr. Libby had had discussions w/ the CIA, had the DoS draft a report for him, had classified CIA documents faxed to him, etc, you think it was honest and factually correct for Libby to say that his only source was what he had heard from reporters?
I see. I guess if you do use the definition of the word "source" you could be right. However, if one used the word in the sense that there could only be one source, as you allege Libby did, then there's no way one could have more than one source.

Since the possibility of having more than one source is precluded by the definition Libby was using, why would Libby bother to specify that he had only one source?
​

However, given another, general usage definition of the word "source," (you know the meaning in which one can have multiple sources of information about the same subject), it appears that Mr. Libby actually had multiple sources in addition to "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters" including the CIA, DoS and the OVP.

The only or just the first ...

Libby did not say "the first." Libby said things like "all I had." "All I had" does not mean the same thing, nor is it synonymous w/ "the first."

... Cheney may have said something to him about it, he may have heard it from some others, but his ONLY "source" may have been a reporter.

And Libby requested classified documents from the CIA and Libby requested that DoS look into the matter. If one holds that there can be multiple sources for information about a single subject, (as Libby seems to have used the word -hence the need to specify that there was only one source), then your entire case is based on the mis-parsing of a single word, seems humorous.

 

[Stinger]

Such acceptance is not required. Since you have read the indictment you must remember that there's more than merely "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters"

And there's a lot not there.

The fact that Libby said that he had only heard aobut it from the reporters is not related to what he told the reporters.

IS as I have stated previuosly a problem for Libby.

The list of conspirators against Libby grows.

Why do you frame it as a conspiricy? OF COURSE they were discussing the op-ed in the WH and OF COURSE they responded.

Perhaps these seven entities got together with "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters" and concocted this plot to make Mr. Libby look bad.

Perhaps it was merely setting the record straight. If that makes Mr. Wilson "look bad" so be it.

By your figuring folks can only have one "source" for all info related to a particular subject?

If I learn something from a person, they are a source. If I then discuss it with others who also know it they are not sources. That is my point, we don't even know at this point who learned what first from whom.

Even though Mr. Libby had had discussions w/ the CIA, had the DoS draft a report for him, had classified CIA documents faxed to him, etc, you think it was honest and factually correct for Libby to say that his only source was what he had heard from reporters?

If he is talking about whom he first learned of the Wilson plot from, yes.

Libby did not say "the first." Libby said things like "all I had." "All I had" does not mean the same thing, nor is it synonymous w/ "the first."

And that is his problem.

And Libby requested classified documents from the CIA

Which he had every right to do, to confirm what his source had told him.

and Libby requested that DoS look into the matter.

Which he had every right to do after his "source" told him of the Wilson plot.


Which until it gets into court and witnesses can be questioned and cross-examined we can until quess. Libby appears to have serious problems with some of his statements. But the underlying fact is it changes nothing as far as the core issue.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Which he had every right to do, to confirm what his source had told him.

You need to look closer at the dates. Libby had several ways of knowing about Wilson's wife in June, but he told the grand jury that reporters were the first to tell him that in July.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Perhaps it was merely setting the record straight. If that makes Mr. Wilson "look bad" so be it.

Maybe you mis-read what you are responding to -
"Perhaps these seven entities got together with "Russert and Mitchel and few other reporters" and concocted this plot to make Mr. Libby look bad."

Basically, from your PoV, Libby's defense rests on which meaning of "source" he used?

If I learn something from a person, they are a source. If I then discuss it with others who also know it they are not sources. That is my point, we don't even know at this point who learned what first from whom.

If he is talking about whom he first learned of the Wilson plot from, yes.

Using your preferred meaning of "source," there would be no possibility that he could have more than one source.
Since Mr. Libby made a point to say he did not have more than one source, wouldn't that mean that Mr. Libby was using a definition of "source" that allowed for the possibility of multiple sources?

 

[Stinger]

He said that reporters were his only source, not merely his first source.

Yes, if I hear it's going to rain on the radio going into work that is my source. When I get there and talk about it with my fellow workers and even the one who walks in and says "hey I just hear..." they are not sources, I already had one. Until we find out exactly who and when he FIRST heard it we won't really know what the true timeline is. If in fact he heard it FIRST from someone other than a reporter and the prosecutor can prove that and prove that he Libby was no suffering from a minor memory lapse, Libby has problems. But they are Libby problems and nothing more than that.

He remembered part of more than one conversation that is not remmbered by the other participants in the conversations.

Which proves nothing, each person remembers things differently.

The conflicting reports from Libby began three MONTHS after, not three years.

Might have some bearing might not.

He had a converstaion about it at least twice a week for a month, and requested documents be faxed to him at the Office of the VP from the CIA regarding the matter. A mere three months after this month long period, he forgot and 'mis-remembered' it.

Did he testify he NEVER discussed with anyone else other than reporters?

 

[Stinger]

You need to look closer at the dates. Libby had several ways of knowing about Wilson's wife in June, but he told the grand jury that reporters were the first to tell him that in July.

But did he? And quite frankly, who cares any more. If he lied before the grand jury for the pupose of obstruction of justice he should pay the price. But it has little to no bearing on the underlying issue.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

And when and what they already knew. For instance Andrea Michell went on national TV and stated, about a year ago, that all the reporters working the DC beat knew who she was, who she was married to and that she worked at the CIA. Guess who her boss was, Russert. He was in charge of the DC beat. So it brings into question HIS testimony as to whether he heard it from Libby or he already knew and perhaps Libby did hear it FIRST from him and then from Cheney or other sources inside the WH. This think was going like wildfire then.



About what he told reporters and when so what he told them and what they told him and when are important questions to that matter which IMO has turned into a non-story.

And the same goes to each or your multiple response which failed to address any of the points made.





Wilson first began leaking in June and that's when the buzz started. Recall Wilson is the only one who really "leaked" in this matter.

Dear Stinger, ..YOU are absolutely correct 100%. Of course there are those who seem to think that the media would NEVER do anything wrong by their own ignorance, or haughtyness that may have led to Plames identity being outed!

Were you aware of the fact that Russert's wife was employed at "Vanity Fair Magazine'' at the time of Plame & Wilson's photo-shoot, & article??

Must have been just a co-incidence, ...if we want to believe the liberal media!

Plame & Wilson BOTH LOVED the public spotlight, & made no efforts to keep themselves, or their identity secret.

And now....why Wilson is indignant, "The Bush administration put my wife in harm's way!! What a PHONEY.....?

It will be brought out during the Libby trial, & I also expect there will be many LINKS from Wilson & Plame that go deep into the political machinations, & what THEIR intent was all along within the democratic party.

Not to mention this fact: Since WHEN did the democratic party, & their liberal icons honestly ever give a damn about the CIA, & other intel agencies, ..or the health of such organizations; ..IF it wasn't out GUTTING their capacity to gather intelligence data from foreign enemies that the whacko liberals were ALWAYS concerned about PROTECTING their individual rights??

 

[Locke006]

It has become obvious that the representatives in D.C. intend to indite people for any reason they can get. From revealing an overt agent to getting some head. It is a rather sick situation where people simply stir up contreversy and are using inditements not as a check and balnce or a form of justice but rather as a political tool in order to do better in the election.