home

Memory is Not the Issue for Libby

Pete Wilson of NBC reports that Libby's lawyer believes this is a memory case, in other words, how could Libby be expected to remember all these conversations?

Very easily. He took copious notes. The International Herald Tribune February 11, 2004 (available on Lexis.com) reported:

One set of documents that prosecutors repeatedly referred to in their meetings with White House aides are extensive notes compiled by Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser. Prosecutors have described the notes as "copious," the lawyers said.

< Under Secretary of State : Marc Grossman? | Russert and Libby and the Complaint About a Reporter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    So let's see if we got this straight.... Mr. Libby is being accused of intentionally misrepresenting where he heard a piece of information that was legal for him to know, and legal for him to discuss publicly? As much as we all love to hate Republicans, isn't this starting to sound like the Martha Stewart indictment? Or even LESS than the Martha Stewart indictment?

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    What? So no bright bunting and celebratory dances here? For all the drum and stur that TL and it's corroresponents have stirred up this seems pretty much...well, a let down, small fish. I'm sure there will be much more informed views after this post but they will all be rather wishful and fantasmigoric towards the Left and its rote.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Jimcee, Don't you mean Sturm and Drang? Meaning smoke and noise signifying nothing?

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Mr Kessler, You are correct and I'm a rather pedestrian yankee but I am sure you understand my meaning. There just seemed to be too much invested by certain members of the Left in this whole episode. To some folks this is as if the president of the US had received an indictiment addressed to him, personally. Not quite but hey there is always the next day. Wake up or be dopey....

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    jimcee:
    this seems pretty much...well, a let down, small fish
    If you are trying to imply that today's indictment of Scooter Libby is insignificant, AND that it puts an end to the investigation of the acts of treason committed by the White House Iraq Group, then I can only conclude that you have either not been paying attention, or that you are deliberately trying to downplay the situation for reasons only you can explain. But to the rest of us, it's pretty obvious that today's events mark only the opening act of a much longer play, the details of which will in due course unfold (or should I say unravel?) before you -- if you care to open your eyes.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dusty on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    I have been listening to the right all day say this is done,finished..kaput..all we got was Scooter..we being the left. I hope this is just the beginning since Fitz has a history of taking his freaking time putting the whole puzzle together. Check his case against the former Illinois Gov. George Ryan on corruption charges in Operation Safe Road, which began in 1998. He didnt indict the Gov until Dec 03 and he was the 66th defendant! Fitz is nothing if not meticulous.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Cymro, I think my point is that people like yourself would like there to be treasonous activity, perhaps believe that somewhere there is treasonous activity, or are determined to call anything treasonous activity in your desire to trash the Bush administration. I return again to the fact that the indictment, which is a charge, not a sentence, concerns answers to a question about perfectly legal activity. Now, that's not on par with accepting campaign donations from the Red Chinese, but it's all they've got.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Well Robert Kessler, or jimcee, considering your inability to keep your two identities straight even within the space of a few posts, I can understand why you might admire the more sophisticated lies and deception practiced by the Bush/Cheney cabal first to trick the nation into going to war in Iraq, and then to cover up afterwards. But you really should pay more attention to what other people are actually saying. Why talk about "return(ing) to the indictment" when my point was very clear that the indictment was the beginning, not the end. And this is based not on my own beliefs, but on what the prosecutor said. I listened very closely to his entire news conference -- did you? In case you did not, he said that Libby was being indicted for obstructing the investigation, but that the investigation was still continuing. And your comment that people like me are looking for treason because we want to criticize Bush and Cheney is just so illogical it is almost funny. The treason is the reason for the criticism, not the other way around. This is not a partisan witch hunt like the one that the Republicans had Ken Starr working on for years because they did not like Clinton. The general thrust of your comments seem to be an effort to promote the latest WH spin about "criminalizing conservatism". If you are naive enough to parrot these kinds of Rove-isms, why are you posting here? It's the present occupants of the WH who have have criminalized conservatism. So you can "return to the indictment" as often as you care to, as you probably will whenever you want to distract attention from the real issues. But that will not make those issues go away.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    et al - Let's review what was investigated. A covert CIA agent was outed, in violation of the espionage laws. That's all. The SP has investigated, most thoroughly, and he was charged Libby with obstruction, perjury, misleading. The agent in question, Mrs. Wilson, is mentioned all over the indictment, yet Libby is not charged with a violation of the espionage laws. This tells me that she was not a covert agent, or else he would have indicted Libby. So, what's left? Other perjury, obstruction, etc. charges? Perhaps, but it appears that all the other players have been truthful. In fact, it appears that their testimony will be used against Libby.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    BTW - On the memory... I have worked with/known several people who had terrible memories who also kept notes, and notes for their notes but who still would confuse who said what to who and when. If you wanted them for a meeting it was best to call them three minutes before you left to remind them. And even then you had to hope that didn't get distracted in the hall.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    BTW - On the memory... Who was it, now, who said 'a man is know by the company he keeps'? Give me a second here...it's right on the tip of my tongue...jeeze...I know this one!...lemme get my notes...damn...now where did I leave 'em... I'll get right back to you on that... ;-)

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    it appears that their testimony will be used against Libby. to pressure him into cracking, and into rolling on whomever he's protecting...

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    I won't waste bandwidth and just say I agree with Cymro. Well put.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Cymro, I really don't mean to sound nasty, but I assume that you believe that Jimcee and I are the same person because...you can't imagine more than one person disagreeing with you? I don't know. Also, since you claim treason has taken place, please define what action in the Plame case satisfies the definition of treason, since, despite JimakaPPJ's accusation that espionage laws were broken, Libby has not been charged with treason, and apparently no outing has occurred. Once again, Plame's identity was not protected information no matter how many times you'd like to claim that it was. This is quite concurrent with the left's endless claim that Bush "lied" about WMD's; a charge that has no anchor in realty beyond the Left's desire to manufacture charges. For example; I'm willing to consider the possibility that Bush was mistaken about WMD's, but only if we ignore the statements of multiple heads of state, multiple intelligence services around the world, and the testimony of a top ranking Soviet intelligence defector who claims to have put in place the WMD dispersal program in Iraq before the war. As to the claim that Bush "lied", i.e. knew there were no WMD's but claimed there were, well...there is simply no evidence to make such an assertion. Repeating a false charge endlessly until it becomes indisputable fact seems to be a basic modus operandi of the Left these days; Bush lied, Delay's a crook, Rove outed a CIA agent, etc., etc. Remember, at this point, Libby has not been charged with outing a CIA agent, he's been charged with lying about where he heard of the agent's identity; an identity that was not illegal for him to know, or to discuss publicly. And in fact, we do not yet know if he lied, or made a mistake. So talk of treason is more Lefty hot air. Respectfully, Rob

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Robert Kessler: "Once again, Plame's identity was not protected information no matter how many times you'd like to claim that it was." Robert, you also may want to read the transcript of the Fitgerald News Conference before you make such statements.
    FITZGERALD: "...I'd like to put the investigation into a little context. Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003." ... I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.
    The applicable law defining the term "covert agent", and its the relationship to the word "classified", is quite clear.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Edgar, Very good point. Your definition of covert includes the following: "and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States..." That seems to be the crux of the matter. Was Plame beyond the five year statute or was she not?

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    rk-you are embarrassing yourself, and may not know it. Have a look at the transcript of the Fitzgerald press conference. BTW- It is easy to follow in case you have the same type of learning disability other wingnuts who comment on this site seem to have.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    I'll repeat for you one more time, rk. If you don't get it, I'll have to assume that you are being wilfully obtuse, or have some serious attention deficit. There is treatment available for these conditions, you know.
    FITZGERALD: I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.


    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    RK, I addressed a post to jimcee, in response to a comment he had made, which I quoted. jimcee then says nothing, but you reply to me with a post that begins "I think my point is ...". So if you're not jimcee, maybe you're his dad. Why else are you owning his post and speaking to me as if you had posted it yourself? And all of this reasoning is very simple and obvious. So one of two situations exists: Either (a) none of that was obvious to you, and you really believe your silly idea the I could not understand how more than one person could disagree with me. Or (b) you did understand but are being deliberately obtuse. In either case, I understand why the rest of your post consists of a lot more naive and obtuse observations that make no sense. So -- whether you actually believe them or not -- I'm certainly not going to waste any more space responding to them.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    edger, since we both reached the identical concusion about RK being deliberately obtuse at the same time, maybe he will now accuse us of being the same person :)

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Cymro: I doubt their capacity for distinguishing much of anything, really. His imagination is so stunted that he needs "attacks" like this one from us to post on powerslime or braindead.org as examples of left wing fanatacism to use as "proof" that "you jes' cain't reason with them nuts over there!"

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    From the Fitzgerald press conference: "I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." Now, what I find of additional interest, is Fitzgerald's statement that the identity of Ms. Plame was classified, and that it was ILLEGAL to discuss it with people outside the government. This issue will have to be resolved, because I believe that it is still unclear. However, charges of treason, as I have said before, are completely innapropriate and hysterical. If Mr. Libby knowingly and with malice, revealed classified information to reporters that was not previously known, then he should suffer the consequences. That is not yet proven. It is also worth pointing out that Mr. Libby immediately resigned, exactly as the President indicated ANYONE would, who was found to be compromised.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    rk: If Mr. Libby knowingly and with malice, revealed classified information to reporters that was not previously known, then he should suffer the consequences.... That is not yet proven. Gee, rk... you're dazzling sharp today, aren't you? Enlighten us will you - do you think that just might be the reason Libby was indicted? So that the judicial process can determine his guilt or innocence? Thanks for clearing that up for us!

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#25)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    RK, please take a look at the sentences i've quoted below and let us know if they make any sense to you.
    An October 1, 2003, Washington Post article also quoted intelligence officials confirming Plame's undercover status with the CIA: Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas. The Post article discussed the CIA's request that the Justice Department investigate the leak, reporting that the classified status of Plame's identity was part of the criteria weighed in the decision to move forward with the investigation:


    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Robert - You must have misread what I wrote:
    The SP has investigated, most thoroughly, and he was charged Libby with obstruction, perjury, misleading. The agent in question, Mrs. Wilson, is mentioned all over the indictment, yet Libby is not charged with a violation of the espionage laws.
    You also ask:
    Was Plame beyond the five year statute or was she not?
    It is my understanding that she was. Darkly - What is it about multiple requirements that you don't undersatnd. edgey - From your comment: rk: If Mr. Libby knowingly and with malice, revealed classified information to reporters that was not previously known, then he should suffer the consequences.... That is not yet proven. Gee, rk... you're dazzling sharp today, aren't you?

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    sorry about that, but to continue... Not only has it not been proven, it has not been charged. I know, details, details....

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Whizzy: Not only has it not been proven, it has not been charged... I know, details, details.... Not only has Libby not been charged with a violation of the espionage laws... I find it astounding that he has not been charged with a parking violation, or with misrepresenting his IQ either. Nice try, Whizzy.

    Re: Memory is Not the Issue for Libby (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Darkly - So, what is it about multiple requirements you don't understand re "covert" agents. I mean, this is well defined. You don't have to guess. But instead you link to an old "guess" and a trollish link. That sound you hear is me laughing.... TaTa!!