1 Boring Old Man » a story about a story…

about
search

Posted on Tuesday 20 February 2007

In his closing argument today, Patrick Fitzgerald addressed a point that I’d wondered about. I hope his explanation wasn’t lost on the jury. I didn’t get it the first time through myself. If you listen to Libby’s story as he told it, it’s absolutely absurd. The defense actually alluded to that in their presentation, claiming that it was just bad memory in the face of a busy schedule rather than some kind of complex lie – implying I guess that if he were lying, he’d have done a lot better job of making up a story. Patrick Fitzgerald gave a reasonable scenerio to explain why Libby made up the story that he’d heard about Valerie Plame from Cheney on June 12, 2003 but promptly forgot it until he was supposedly reminded on July 10, 2003 by Russert. It’s an absurd story because Fitzgerald paraded a number of people who talked to Libby about Plame during the period of alledged Amnesia, and Russert vehemently denies telling Libby about Plame. He didn’t even know about her then:

He picked someone high up in NBC. He picked someone they would know he talked to. If he had picked Woodward, he might have gotten lucky₁.

Goverment Exhibit 20, government guidlelines on dealing with Media. No subpoena without express authorization from Attorney General. If he can convince Agent Bond, "nothing here," it goes away. If he doesn’t convince them to go to the Attorney General for a subpoena. You know what, we would never have heard Russert’s conversation if he wasn’t called at home₂. It could have been enough not to get the FBI to get Attorney General to issue a subpoena. It could have worked if Russert never talked₃. When you look back, history always looks inevitable. They’re talking about firing people. He had planted his feet. He had to come up with someone. He had to make sure to say, "Russert, this is off the record."

Fitzgerald’s point is clear. Had things gone as planned, Libby’s alibi could’ve been air-tight. Had Russert played the first Amendment card in the F.B.I. call, he couldn’t have been supoenaed. Had Russert not lost his First Amendment case, he wouldn’t have testified. Had Libby just picked Bob Woodward as his made up source, Woodward would say he didn’t recall – maybe he did bring up Plame. He knew about her. Armitage had told him several weeks earlier. In any one those three scenerios, Libby is off the hook. Libby’s story only looks absurd because, luckily, it didn’t quite work.

More tangled webs…

₁ Woodward interviewed Libby on June 27th, 2003. Woodward testified that he didn’t know if he brought up Valerie Plame to Libby or not. Thus, had Libby picked Woodward, his alibi might have worked:

Jeffress: Did uranium from Africa come up?

Bob Woodward: yellowcake, which is a form of uranium oxide, did come up.

Jeffress: Did you ask any questions about Wilson’s wife?

Bob Woodward: Not that I recall.

Jeffress: Is it possible you did?

Bob Woodward: Yes.

₂ Before the Special Prosecutor had even been appointed, Russert was contacted at home by an F.B.I. Agent. He talked freely, saying that he had not told Libby about Valerie Plame. Later, Russert tried to avoid testifying to the Grand Jury. Libby’s Attorney grilled Russert extensively about why he talked openly to the F.B.I. on the phone, then try to claim reporter/source First Amendment confidentiality? Not a bad question actually. Obviously, the F.B.I. Agent caught Russert off guard. Fitz’s point here is that if Russert’s guard had been up, things might have ended there, because the F.B.I. had no supoena power at that point.

₃ Russert and NBC vigorously fought testifying before the Grand Jury, claiming the First Amendment reporter/source confidentiality. They lost and Russert was ordered to testify.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.