• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libby - Honest Mistake or Intentional Perjury?

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I wondered if maybe Libby just accidently misspoke himself, and didn't intentionally make false claims. After all, he was being questioned about a series of events that happened over 9 months prior, and I'm sure he's a busy man. So I took a close look at the actual indictment:

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

It asserts that Libby learned from several sources in June and early July, 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA:

1. In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the Counterproliferation Division.

2. 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.

3. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the Under Secretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

4. 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.

5. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

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

7. 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.

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

9. 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.


But in his testimony to the Grand Jury regarding a conversation with NBC's Tim Russert on or about July 10, 2003, Libby said Russert asked him if he knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and that Russert told him all the reporters knew it. Libby testified that he was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA:

"And then [Russert] said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it." - Lewis Libby, March, 2004

At the time of this conversation with Russert, Libby was well aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He was made aware of this fact less than a month earlier, by the Vice President, the Under Secretary of State, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs, and a senior CIA officer. Furthermore, it was confirmed by Libby's own CIA briefer, and by Libby himself on at least three different occasions prior to this conversation.

I can understand not being able to recall specific things. I can understand how details can get foggy over time and memory can be inaccurate. What I can't understand is recalling things that could not have happened. i.e. remembering being taken aback by the "news" that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. He may have been testifying 9 months after the fact, but this actually concerns a "memory lapse" of less than a month. He specifically "remembers" being surprised when Russert mentioned it, but he knew damn well who Valerie Plame was at the time. If not, then he has a short-term memory problem so serious that he was probably not fit for public office in the first place.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Binary, I believe that Libby was questioned within months of the leak, and thus his statements at that time were not too far from June/July 2003.

This is what I think. He leaked Plame's name to Judith Miller. I think he was sure that Judith Miller would not reveal his name due to confidentiality. I don't think he foresaw that she would be put in jail over this. If he was so innocent, he would have reached out to her a lot sooner than close to 85 days in jail. Instead, he was willing to allow Miller to sit in jail while he continued to have his top secret security clearance.

Tucker Carlson said on his show that he (Tucker) had lunch with a friend of Libby's, who said he could not believe that Libby messed up so many facts because Libby was so meticulous about facts.

Libby is famous as one of the most careful and meticulous lawyers in Washington. He spent years in private practice representing high-power clients like Marc Rich. I had dinner Friday with one of Libby's former clients, who described Libby as "maddeningly precise."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1005/carlson.php3

So I don't believe it was an honest mistake. He thought he was going to be able to hide behind Miller's promise of confidentiality, while at the same time, protect his boss.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
aps said:
Binary, I believe that Libby was questioned within months of the leak, and thus his statements at that time were not too far from June/July 2003.
That is correct. The indictment says that Libby spoke to Tim Russert on or about July 10, 2003, and he testified to the GJ on or about March 5 and March 24, 2004. That's 9-10 months.

Interesting theory about Judith Miller btw. Her name seems to come up more often than any other reporter involved in this whole mess.
 
Top Bottom