home

Valerie Plame Case: New From Murray Waas


The intrepid reporter Murray Waas has a new article in the National Journal exposing what transpired at the grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

In attempting to determine Libby's motives for allegedly lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about his leaking of Plame's CIA identity to journalists, federal investigators theorized from the very earliest stages of the case that Libby may have been trying to hide Cheney's own role in encouraging Libby to discredit Wilson, according to attorneys involved in the case.

Key among the details is the July 12, 2003 plane trip that Cheney, Libby and Cheney aide Cathie Martin took to Norfolk. I wrote some extensive posts on it here and here.

Murray theorizes, as have many others, myself included, that Libby may have lied to the grand jury to protect Cheney. Murray writes that a senior official has confirmed to him in an interview:

Cheney and Libby often acted without the knowledge or approval and of other senior White House staff when it came to their efforts to discredit Wilson -- including leaking classified information to the press.

Murray continues:

The federal grand jury indictment of Libby states: "A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media... information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson to the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and the purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information."

In his interviews by the FBI and testimony before the federal grand jury, Libby testified that it was the reporters who told him, and not the other way around, that Plame was a CIA officer. Prosecutors are expected to argue during the trial next week that Libby lied because to tell the truth Libby would have to admit that he leaked classified information and might politically embarrass the White House. But the prosecution may very well subtly make the case that another motive was for Libby to protect his then-boss, Cheney. In private, some federal investigators have asserted that Libby might have lied from the beginning to protect Cheney.

This is another important piece from Murray. I recommend you all read it.

< Jose Padilla Trial Continued Until April | Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Steps Down >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    alright fredo, i'll bite (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 07:32:03 AM EST
    please provide the quotes, from both the 9/11 commission report, and the SSCI, exposing joe wilson as a fraud.

    I believe Hubris (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    has a detailed account of some of the right wing's claims about Ambassador Wilson's account and the Ambassadors response to those critics and some information as to who is right (hint: it isn't the Cheney side).

    Parent
    What Wilson didn't say was right. (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    Molly - Please read my response to Dadler.

    If we are to believe Wilson we must first believe that the ex-premeir of Nigeria lied, that the Senate report is a lie, that Wilson lied to the CIA's debriefers and the CIA Reports officer lied.

    Please note that Wilson refers to the CIA report in his article.

    a C.I.A. report summing up my trip

    And I have linked to the report, and quoted what the CIA Reports Officer said. To my knowledge Wilson has never denied what he said.

    Now ,if we go back and read his article, w