Jan 31 2007
Fitz’s Folly VI – 1999 Wilson Report Caused Iraq Concerns!
[Note: Updates at the end. Folks, the jem is at the bottom after the fold. To summarize, Wilson went to Niger to debunk his own earlier report from 1999]. Now we have Judith Miller, and the case for the prosecution starts to fall apart more. Key date to hold in your mind while going through all of this is July 8th. On that date the information regarding the NIE (and I believe Wilson’s trip as it related to it) was declassified. So here we go with Miller’s first meeting with Libby on June 23rd and something I noted way back when she first wrote about her meetings – and that is Libby did NOT discuss Wilson by name or occupation at this meeting.
F Did there come a time when you met with Libby
M In OEOB, June 23. (Voice waivers)
M Mr. Libby appeared agitated and frustrated and angry
F HOw could you tell
M He’s a lowkey and controlled guy, what he said made me think I was correct. He was concerned that CIA was beginning to backpdal to distance self from unequivocal estimates it provided before the war through a “perverted war of leaks.”
F Did the topic of Joseph Wilson come up
F What do you recall was said
M His office had learned that he had been sent overseas, initially referred to as clandestine guy. VP had asked about a report in Winter 2002, in Africa, CIA hd sent Mr Wilson out to investigate claim.
F Was Libby saying VP sent WIlson
M the contrary. He said that VP did not know that Mr Wilson had been sent.
2:29
F What he said about Winter 2002 and how it related to trip.
M There had been reports, a report had gone up to the Hill indicating that Iraq hunting for uranium in Niger. VP had asked about those reporters, agency had taken upon itself to find out more. In the beginning he referred to Wilson as clandestine guy.
F Mr. Wilson’s wife (voice not in gerat shape)
M Yes, when he was discussing intell reporting, he said his wife (referring to Wilson) worked in the bureau
If Libby did discuss Wilson only in the abstract of “clandestine guy” then he while he was, in essence, discussing Wilson and Plame he was not using their names and therefore not divulging them to the media. This is absolutely critical. Because this is where Fitzgerald’s whole case implodes. If Libby was going to out Plame he would have used the name “Joe Wilson” at least! But if he was being careful and did not let on about Wilson’s identity, then talking about some mystery guy’s wife is clearly not a campaign against any individual. What is interesting, and I understand it is in cross examination later, is Miller knew the name “Joe Wilson” before she met with Libby because she had talked to him! She had his phone number in her notes. The reason Wilson and variants of Plame’s name are in her notes are not because of Libby – he used ‘clandestine guy’. No one can derive “Joe Wilson” from that. So it is clear that while Libby was trying to hide the specifics about who this clandestine guy was, Miller already knew (and clearly did not tell Libby she knew). Or did she? Interesting question from Walton
Walton Was he using Wilson’s name
M First as a clandestine guy, then began talking about Joe Wilson by name
Question is, did she say something to lead him to understand she knew who the clandestine guy was.
Here is a real trip for Plamiacs. We all know Valerie Plame sent Joe Wilson to Niger in 1999 as well, that 2002 was not his first mission for the CIA to that country. It turns out the report that Iraq and Niger were back at the Yellow Cake dance (they had traded in Yellow Cake prior to the first Gulf War – without the knowledge of the French who supposedly oversaw the trade) in 1999 was from a report by one Joe Wilson from his earlier trip to Niger! There were serious concerns at the time that AQ Kahn, father of the Pakistani Nuclear Bomb, was out selling his knowledge to other muslim countries. As we discussed in one of many earlier posts on this site, that earlier trip was during major upheavels in Niger and after a military coup d’etat. News that Iraq had come calling at this pivotal stage was probably very alarming in non-proliferation circles. It has been my suspicion the CIA bribed some key folks to forego the coup and turn the country into a democracy.
But either way, the report that Iraq might have been talking to Niger about yellow cake which hit the Hill and caused the VP to ask questions, and subsequently send Wilson back to Niger in 2003 – was Wilson’s own earlier report!:
F what discussed. [Judy uncomfortable]
M SAid plenty of info before Powell presentation was given, supporting Iraq hunting uranium, it had been shown that IRaq HAD acquired uranium in Africa, prior to 1st gulf war, in 80s IAEA stated taht Iraq had acquired, after that several different reports that Iraq in market again for uranium. 2 reports, for a long-term arrangement for large quantities, and then a shorter term amount, then referred to anohter report, a third report, the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship, since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium, Author of this report was Joe Wilson. The report had gone up to the Hill. Talking about info provided to Hill, which had prompted VP questions.
F Did he indicate who provided this report
M CIA
How interesting. Wilson went to Niger in 2002 and then came back debunking his own report from 1999? How totally fascinating (and never reported to the American people). So Kristof’s headline should have been “Ex Ambassador changes his mind on Iraq WMD”. Ugh! This is what this was all about? Wilson reported a serious Iraq overture to Niger in 1999 and then goes back in 2002 and debunks his own earlier report? Were they his forgeries as well? More later on Miller if I have time.
Addendum: Just wanted to add some more to the Miller-Libby meeting and whether Libby ever deviated from the “clandestine guy” line in their first meeting:
J Did you say to the GJ:
[GK Transcript]: I really have to rely on my notes because my memory is not good
M Sir, I’d like to see the context of that.
J Were you asked the following question.
Judy swallowing nervously.
[GJ Transcript] And is it fair to say that in describing Wilson’s wife, your best recollection is he did not refer to her by name?
I still think Libby was really cautious but Miller knew about Wilson and actually has no recollection if Libby used their names or not – in her head they names would automatically be associated. More later.
While we are clearing up terms
conspiracy
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Note the word agreement. Two people doing the same thing is NOT a conspiracy UNLESS they AGREE to do it.
As noted above – to prove criminal conspiracy requires:
In addition to thinking about the common plan – there has to be some step taken to make it happen.
Let the media/journalists’ karma visit them daily. May they get back in return double what they give out. Journalism as a profession is being exposed again for what it is: a mouthpiece for the liberals.
This trial has been and always will be a cover-up of the CIA’s employee and her cohorts trying to undermine a sitting President.
Again, the democrats shred our country’s legal system and our moral fibres.
I thought this whole case was a farce before the trial began. Since it began I am amazed that it even went to trial. This whole thing is much ado about nothing. And please tell me how Libby obstructed anything. There was no crime to start with. Congress should change this law that people do time for lying about a non-crime. Fitzgerald just wanted to extend his time in the sun. He is the one who should be up on charges for spending federal funds for personal gain. If he thought charging Libby would excuse this he is wrong. All it did was dig the well deeper. What is it about these democrat prosecutors who think they can ride to success railroading innocent people.
And as far as the media goes at least it put paid to the idea of congress passing a law that reporters would not be required to reveal their sources. At least that miscarriage of justice has been averted. At least I hope so. With the congress we have who knows.
Do you think the Fitzgerald came up with this investigation on his own; that is was HIS idea? He is a United States Attorney, and his bosses told him to investigate a referral from the CIA. In the course of his investigation he discovered Scooter Libby had lied and perjured himself on multiple occasions – resulting in obstruction of Fitzgerald’s investigation. That’s the obstruction of justice.
Did you feel the same way about Fitzgerald when he was putting Mafia bosses or crooked Democratic politicians in jail?
Patrick J. Fitzgerald began his prosecutorial career in 1988 by handling significant drug trafficking cases, and prosecuting major heroin smuggling rings. In 1993 he and another lawyer prosecuted, and won convictions against, John Gambino, a capo of the Gambino Crime Family and three other members of the Gambino Crime Family crew for a variety of charges, including murder and racketeering. In June of 1994, he became counsel in the prosecution of the ‘blind sheik’, Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 other defendants, who were accused of a seditious conspiracy involving the bombing of the World Trade Center and a plot to bomb the United Nations, the FBI Building in New York, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and to assassinate President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The nine-month trial resulted in convictions. The following year, Fitzgerald was named Co-Chief of the Organized Crime and Terrorism Section of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Shortly thereafter he became National Security Coordinator for the Office. In these capacities, he was responsible for supervising the investigation and development and prosecution of the case against Osama bin Laden. He was the chief counsel in the prosecution of those alleged to have perpetrated the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
That he just wanted more time in the sun??
Don’t be ridiculous. And I still maintain Libby’s chance of conviction is at 90%+.
Soothie, you are so wrong on so many counts. The phrase you are looking for is ‘prosecutorial discretion’. And when he was handed the case, with the knowledge Armitage was the source of the leak to Novak (it was well established by then) he had every authority to close it up. Also, he is not acting a normal prosecutor as many have pointed out. He is a special prosecutor.
And as you will also learn if you pay attention Libby never once changed his story. He never once recalled a new meeting (Rove and Armitage and Miller did). He never changed his story. He never plead the 5ht (like Ari). He never required immunity. He was consistent. Consistently wrong, but that is how he remembered events.
And misremembering is not perjury, and neither is lying about something if it is not to core of the investigation. Libby admitted talking to reporters about Plame. His mistake was in how HE learned. That is not germaine to Fitzgerald’s investigation because Libby was legally allowed to know the information. As was everyone who discussed it inside theWH and OVP. Fitz was never authorized to validate how government officials learned about Plame – that was NEVER his mandate.
The trial is a joke, Fitz is a joke and the believers in Fitzmas are jokes. I could care less if any of them GET the joke.
I wonder what will happen to this “trial” when more of the jurors have to quit because their bosses won’t pay their wages like the last one. This is all a waste of taxpayer money for a non-event.
The defense on Monday will make a motion to impeach Miller and Cooper. Probably Russert too if it can be proved that Gregory told him what Ari told him. and that is likely. Can anyone see Gregory keeping his big mouth shut about this news. I remember seeing Mitchell saying on tv that the press knew about Plame long ago. But that was not the agenda of the press so she reneged.
AJ-
Your knowlege and understanding of legal process could be put in a thimble. I am fully confident when Libby is convicted you’ll have elaborate and labyrinthine excuses for why the jurors were delusional. Whatever. You say I’m wrong – I say you’re wrong – and I’ll tell you why:.
1. I wasn’t looking for the phrase prosecutorial discretion – altho you may have been – and the reason that Fitzgerald decided to prosecute Libby is that after Libby is convicted and faces a lengthy prison term, Fitzgerald will turn him against his co-conspirators. This has been his modus operandi in multiple successful prosecutions.
2. Better to plead the 5th than to lie – the same thing happened when Martha Stewart talked to Federal investigators over the objection of her lawyer. He told her to keep her mouth shut – she thought she could talk her way out of it and get away with a lie. She got caught. So did Libby. Very smart people – like Martha Stewart and I. Lewis Libby – often think they can outwit their interrogators. It’s always a mistake to talk too much.
3. You are completely misinformed on Fitzgerald’s mandate:
Dec 30, 2003 – Comey delegates to Fitzgerald
Further, on Feb 6, 2004 – Comey clarifies that
Plenary, by the way, means: full, complete. Plenary powers means he has the full power of the Office of the Attorney General of the United States of America to investigate “perjury [and] obstruction of justice”, the very crimes with which Libby is charged.
Why Scooter is Screwed – II
Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary testified Libby told him during lunch on July 7, 2003, that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and had been responsible for sending Wilson Niger.
FBI agent Deborah Bond testified Libby investigators in November 2003 he absolutely did not discuss Plame with Fleischer, denied knowing about Wilson’s wife, and didn’t know Wilson’s wife worked at the agency until told by Tim Russert on July 10th or July 11th.
Libby testified earlier that Dick Cheney told him in June 2003 Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but he forgot that until he heard it again from Tim Russert. When he heard it from Russert, Libby told the FBI, it was as if he were hearing it for the first time.
Today, Fizgerald argued he should be allowed to show the jury a videotape of Scott McClellan telling reporters at a White House press briefing that Libby had nothing to do with the leak.
Why does it matter? McClellan’s statements go to the heart of the matter: Libby complained to Dick Cheney that McClellan cleared Rove but not Libby, Cheney ordered McClellan to tell reporters he’d talked to Libby, and Libby wasn’t involved. Once the White House said Libby wasn’t involved, Libby was stuck with that story, which became Libby’s motive for lying to the FBI and to the grand jury; he couldn’t admit he had divulged Plame’s identity, and chose to say reporters told him about Plame.
AJ,
I’m reading your great post a little late, but the discovery you’ve made, that it was Joe Wilson’s 1999 report that “went up the Hill” and prompted Cheney’s inquiry into Niger , means that when Valerie Plame complained about “this crazy report” she meant JOE’S REPORT! Too funny.
Zen Koan:
What is the sound of one man lying?
Well – it appears we will soon all have the answer, as
we will soon all have access to Libby’s perjured testimony before the Grand Jury.
Start the spin machine, AJ, you’ll want it warmed up before the s*** hits the fan.
Sometimes it gets so tiring…….
….debunking the same lies over and over again. Joseph Wilson’s lies have been thoroughly debunked yet some on the left continue to defend his lies. Many in the media continue to repeat his lies as if they were truth. Now, in the trial of Scooter …