Treasongate: Et Tu Scooter?
by eriposte
It's time to review the impact of Judith Miller's testimony on Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Although Judith Miller has a history of making misleading statements (or flat out lying), we can focus on the portions of her testimony that were based (largely) on her handwritten notes - the notes associated with her conversations with Libby prior to the Valerie Plame expose, which are more than likely to be trustworthy (for now) - to get a sense for how things stack up for Libby.
There appear to be four, and possibly six, areas where Libby could be in trouble with the grand jury.
1. The June 23, 2003 meeting between Libby and Miller
2. Libby's alleged testimony that he heard about Valerie Wilson's CIA identity from NBC's Tim Russert
3. Libby's knowledge of Valerie Plame's CIA identity
4. Libby's intent to hide the source of Miller's info about Joseph Wilson
5. Libby's suggestion that all the reporters he spoke to either knew about Valerie Plame beforehand or did not discuss Valerie Plame with him
6. The controversy over whether Libby tried to influence Miller's testimony
1. The June 23, 2003 meeting between Libby and Miller
One thing we already knew before Miller's report of her testimony came out was that Libby had concealed the June 23, 2003 meeting between him and Judith Miller (of course Miller concealed this too, at first).
Libby also specifically did not mention the June 2003 meeting in his letter to Miller asking her to testify, and specifically cited only the July 2003 meetings.
Now, if he had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong, why hide this meeting again and again?
2. Libby's alleged testimony that he heard about Valerie Wilson's CIA identity from NBC's Tim Russert
Sometime back, Murray Was had reported this:
Libby has reportedly told Fitzgerald that he first learned of Plame's identity from NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert. But Russert has told investigators that he never told Libby about Plame. Rove said that he first learned the information from his conversation with Robert Novak.
If Libby indeed told the grand jury this, he would have been lying. Why?
The meeting with Russert occurred in July 2003 (emphasis mine):
NBC TV's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert agreed to an interview with prosecutors about a telephone conversation he had in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby...
Yet, Judith Miller's article describing notes from her first meeting with Lewis Libby on the Wilson matter, on June 23, 2003, stated this:
Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. [Eriposte note: This likely refers to WINPAC].
3. Libby's knowledge of Valerie Plame's CIA identity
According to news reports on Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby claimed to have not known that Valerie Wilson worked for the CIA even as late as July 8, 2003:
[Per the reports of his testimony] Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.
This is contradicted by Judith Miller's notes (luckily we don't have to rely on her say-so alone). As Miller stated in her article:
Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word "bureau" might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Of course, I have discussed in a previous post why Libby's claims to have not known Valerie Wilson's name or CIA identity do not pass the smell test, even without using Miller's testimony.
4. Libby's intent to hide the source of Miller's info about Joseph Wilson
Again, we luckily don't have to rely on Miller's mere say-so. As Miller stated in her article:
Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, "Former Hill staffer."
My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.
Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.
Again, if this was all just a matter of "setting the record straight" about Joseph Wilson, why this inordinate trickery and secrecy?
5. Libby's suggestion that all the reporters he spoke to either knew about Valerie Plame beforehand or did not discuss Valerie Plame with him
As I have discussed before, Lewis Libby's strange letter to Miller had this sentence (emphasis mine):
Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.
Now, Judith Miller has stated that to the "..."best of her recollection she did not know of" Plame's employment at the CIA "before she spoke to Mr. Libby"...". Of course, Miller has not entirely been clear on whether she had heard Joseph Wilson's wife's name before her first meeting with Libby, where he mentioned to Miller that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
The implication of this is a bit ambigious. Libby may or may not be in trouble - time will tell which one is true. A literal interpretation of Libby's sentence would mean that if Judith Miller had not heard about Valerie Plame in the context of Joseph Wilson's trip, prior to the Libby-Miller meeting on June 23, 2003, then Libby would be in trouble.
6. The controversy over whether Libby tried to influence Miller's testimony
Miller's original claims on this have devolved into a he-said, she-said, as the Washington Post notes. In combination with the other observations mentioned above, I tend to think that Libby probably did try to influence Miller's testimony.