PDA

View Full Version : Criminal Indictment of Lewis(Scooter)Libby



mike60
07-26-2008, 02:38 PM
In this indictment it is clearly shown Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer and the lies from Cheneys office. The denial of these facts will not change the truth.
The defense of our nation has been compromised by the Vice Presidents office for partisan political purposes and those crimes have been concealed by the lies of Libby.
There is no evidence of any kind to refute these charges and the President has aided this obstruction of justice by pardoning Libby in order to silence him in further
Federal Court trials. The citizens have been cheated of the knowledge of the crimes of this administration. The future will serve us better as we must learn the truth and remedy these crimes.
In respect to my fellow members of this forum i would like to say that denial is no defense. Clear charges are herein and the truth will out. Blatant nonsense such as the
oft repeated "secretary" or "there is no proof" or "if there is a crime why isn't there a trial?" denial tactics are dashed by this indictment. This document and the many
subsequent articles and admissions by former employees of the administration show the extant of the lies and deeds that are by any reasonable measure criminal and many
are treasonous.

Read this if you care for the truth.

michaelsixty

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. )

)

)

I. LEWIS LIBBY, )

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY” )

Criminal No.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503)

Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))

Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)

INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE

(Obstruction of Justice)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. At times material to this indictment:
Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities
a. Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of
this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed
as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United
States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work,
LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S.
intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security
matters.
b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with
responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access
to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable
laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order
12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not
authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified
information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a
written “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” stating in part that “I understand and
accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be
placed in me by the United States Government,” and that “I have been advised that the unauthorized
disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause
damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”
The Central Intelligence Agency
c. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence
information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President,
the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was
classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential
to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those
individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and
endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
2

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who
had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA
bythe Vice President concerningcertain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative
to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the
CIA upon his return.
f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Events Leading up to July 2003
2. On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the
Union address which included sixteen words asserting that “The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
3. On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which
disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words” in the State of the Union address. The column reported
that, following a request from the Vice President’s office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq
sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in
2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the
CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based
on forged documents.
3

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary
of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger
to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary
thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report
concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral
reports in late May and earlyJune 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador
who took the trip.
5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed
to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the
Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed,
among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After
receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President
handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents.
6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY
in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State
Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask
about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office
of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY
participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
4

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United
States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation
Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
10. On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus
about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and
reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger afteran aide to the Vice President raised questions about
purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen
words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase
story was false.
11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their
conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical
of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and
his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.
12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online
entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” Among other things, the article
questioned the “sixteen words” and stated that following a request for information from the Vice
President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations
that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed
ambassador alleging that administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The
article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President,
portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and
accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
5

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by
telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY
whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that
the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that therewouldbe complications at the CIA
in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure
telephone line.
14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective
leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s
trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
The July 6 “Op Ed” Article by Wilson
15. On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled
“What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article
about Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson.
Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show “Meet the Press.” In
his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that
he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that
Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained
uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his
understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the
results of his trip.
6

LIBBY’s Actions Following Wilson’s July 6 “Op Ed” Column
16. On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press
Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and noted that such
information was not widely known.
17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter
Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the
information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather
than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other
information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with
Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this
discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
18. Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President
in an anteroom outside the Vice President’s Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked
the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA
if an employee’s spouse undertook an overseas trip.
19. Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice
President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at
the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.
20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim
Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss
Wilson’s wife with Russert.
7

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White
House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with
columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in
Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about
Wilson’s wife.
22. On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and
from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials
aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including
questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.
23. On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper,
who asked whether LIBBY had heardthat Wilson’s wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip
to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this
information too.
24. On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with
Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson’s wife, and that she worked at the CIA.
The Criminal Investigation
25. On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the
CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.
8

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of
the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel.
During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11,
2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked
for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and
Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this
statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that
he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice
President.
b. During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about
July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did
not know if this was true; and
c. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with New York Times reporter Judith
Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.
27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment,
Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury
Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States
Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false
statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).
9

28. A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government
officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of
Valerie Wilson with theCIA,andthe nature, timing, extent, and 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.
29. During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among
others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:
i. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned
that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA;
ii. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that
Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA;
iii. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to
the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information
he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;
iv. LIBBY’s knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it; and
v. Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the
media relating to Valerie Wilson.
10

LIBBY’s Grand Jury Testimony
30. On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.
On each occasion of LIBBY’s testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to
LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.
31. In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due

administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving

the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently
disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant
LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations, in substance, under oath:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
2003:
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
11

b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003,
that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further
advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c. LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12,
2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA but
LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.
33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made
each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10,
2003:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife
worked fortheCIA,nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:
• In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice
President that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in the
Counterproliferation Division;
• On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior
CIA officer that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA and
that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
12

• On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the
Under Secretary of State that Wilson’s wife worked for the
CIA;
• On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed “Joe Wilson”
and “Valerie Wilson” with his CIA briefer, in the context of
Wilson’s trip to Niger;
• On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith
Miller that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
• On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House
Press Secretary that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA;
• In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or
about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to
the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson’s wife
worked for the CIA;
• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith
Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; and
• On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the
Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the
paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an
overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the
CIA;
b. LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that
LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did
LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY
confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the
CIA; and
13

c. LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY
had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise
her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
14

COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2. During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to
that investigation:
a. When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that
Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA;
b. Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson’s
wife was employed by the CIA;
c. The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the
media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he
may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and
d. LIBBY’s knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it.
3. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
15

Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in
response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003,
Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all
the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while
speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about
Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President.
4. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that
when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
16

COUNT THREE
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth
herein.
2. On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent

statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in

response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003,
LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife
worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
3. As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did
not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that
LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
17

COUNT FOUR
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the
United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony
regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July
10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know
that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by
that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more
but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't
know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in
any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that
I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was
first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful
not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that
this – you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with
you, and he said, that's fine.
So then he said – I said – he said, sorry – he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you
know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no,
I don't know that. And then he said, yeah – yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,
again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything
for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he
thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I
18

didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the
conversation, something like that.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that:
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
19

COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2. On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,

also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY,”

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the

United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony

regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson’s wife by
the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):
a. Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation
With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:
Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about
Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what
reporters –
A. Yes.
Q. – plural, were saying. Correct?
A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind
I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this
information that was coming in from the reporters.
. . . .
Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him,
you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what
reporters are saying?
20

A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't
know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things,
I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think
I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
b. Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations
With Reporters:
Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the
law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could
turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account
for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather
than the Vice-President?
A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you
told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to
other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because
it was – that's what – that's how I did it.
. . . .
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact.
If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have
been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr.
Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you
told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as
something you knew?
A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want
people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said
it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I
wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it
might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes,
or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they
didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted
them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them
know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr.
Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
21

Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out
in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife.
That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's
married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I
didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought
at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I
said to the other reporters is what, you know – I told a couple reporters what
other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters
were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters
that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
A TRUE BILL:
FOREPERSON
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
22

LWW
07-26-2008, 05:47 PM
Wow.

LWW

DickLeonard
07-27-2008, 11:39 AM
lww woe is us. ####

DickLeonard
07-27-2008, 11:41 AM
lww Woe is us. ####

eg8r
07-28-2008, 08:05 AM
Keep thinking what you want but the proof was never there.

eg8r

mike60
07-28-2008, 01:27 PM
eg8r, It's what the Dept. of Justice believes. It is the official DOJ indictment.

mike60

eg8r
07-28-2008, 02:14 PM
Mike, if all this was true then someone would be sitting in jail by now.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-28-2008, 03:10 PM
"I would like to say that denial is no defense. Clear charges are herein and the truth will out. Blatant nonsense such as the
oft repeated "secretary" or "there is no proof" or "if there is a crime why isn't there a trial?" denial tactics are dashed by this indictment."
Did you both read and understand what he wrote?
O.J. wasn't proved innocent....just wasn't proved guilty in the closed minds of the 12 jurors. You sure you weren't on that panel???
With Presidential pardons selling now at a discount...we might have to wait until GWB is unceremoniously shown the door "Don't call us, we'll...." ...before all the indictments are in. As an impartial person, I am volunteering for any jury duty related to the crimes and misdemeanors...make that felonies, of the gang of four (or five)
Do we have an extradition agreement with Dubai? I'm betting that's where the Presidential library, sanitized version, will be built.

mike60
07-28-2008, 04:20 PM
eg8r, Libby would be in Federal Prison now. The President pardoned him and he is free to go. Libby is not innocent. He was found guilty and pardoned.

mike

mike60
07-28-2008, 04:21 PM
The real tragedy is that OLLIE NORTH is free.


mike

eg8r
07-29-2008, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby is not innocent. He was found guilty and pardoned.</div></div>You really have a crappy memory. Libby was NEVER found guilty of outing the secretary.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-29-2008, 12:21 PM
OMG, what is this country coming to? We pride ourselves on a fair judicial system....and here this poor guy was convicted of the wrong crime, or crimes.

mike60
07-29-2008, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby is not innocent. He was found guilty and pardoned.</div></div>You really have a crappy memory. Libby was NEVER found guilty of outing the secretary.

eg8r </div></div>

eg8r, Your actual question was why wasn't he in prison? Not was he convicted of being a traitor? He was convicted and PARDONED. There is no need to PARDON someone
found innocent. Read your damn posts.
THE TRIAL WAS ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WHAT WAS OBSTRUCTED? HOW PLAME WAS EXPOSED...... Please try to read more...


mike

eg8r
07-30-2008, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r, Your actual question was why wasn't he in prison? Not was he convicted of being a traitor? </div></div>If you cannot follow the discussion then to save a bit of your own dignity, why not just bow out.

eg8r

mike60
07-30-2008, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r, Your actual question was why wasn't he in prison? Not was he convicted of being a traitor? </div></div>If you cannot follow the discussion then to save a bit of your own dignity, why not just bow out.

eg8r </div></div>

eg8r, I'm forwarding this to an elementary school teacher i know for grading but she might kick it down to kindergarden.


mike

mike60
08-01-2008, 08:21 PM
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=1333808#post1333808

mike60
08-02-2008, 01:11 AM
My stock answer..............
Since you asked.....
Somewhere there is a world where this is illegal and it should be............

George Bush was appointed Resident by the Supreme Court Conservative majority when the fixed electronic voting machines couldn't seal the deal even with the 90,000 voters thrown off the registered to vote list in Florida and the staff of several Republican congress critters rioted in the offices of the Dade county election commission to stop a legal recount to ensure Bush an unearned term as Resident. The wonder of it all.
How a few well placed felons may disrupt an election and then use the justices to strip the state of the right to determine their own count when
it is obvious the chosen resident is losing. That numbers of citizens are so stupid that they defend the very group that disenfranchise their votes. You crackers and other fellow travelers are just being spun for the profit of a group so beyond your ability to comprehend that they've
got you volunteering your rights away to catch boogymen that are smarter than you and get away with crime and theft while you fools hold the door for them. You rant about the two important secret investigations that were actually well known by the bad guys that did so well when in fact both programs were already useless. Your little band of complainers, and you are few in number. Should just join up and go fight. Or drive a truck for the contractors until you get your ass handed to you by an EID or vote for McCain for a lot more WAR PROFITEERING by your
corporate money vacuum. You really are beneath contempt for just believing what is laughably called conservative. as if........


miguel
____

mike60
08-02-2008, 01:14 AM
WARNING: DENIAL FREAKS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY CHALLENGED WAR PROFITEER ENABLERS DO NOT READ, POSSIBLE CRANIAL IMPLOSION.

It's just too easy to find the truth.....

THIS IS ACTUAL CIA OFFICERS NOT REPORTERS OR HEARSAY.......


Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame's Outing
by Mary Louise Kelly
Listen Now [4 min 9 sec] add to playlist
Morning Edition, March 7, 2007 · The verdict in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby is attracting attention among Valerie Plame's former colleagues at the CIA.
Among intelligence insiders, there's concern that nearly four years after the CIA called for an investigation into the leak of Plame's name to reporters, no one has been charged for what they see as an unpardonable crime: outing an undercover operative.
Valerie Plame belonged to that secretive circle of spies who spend most of their careers — in some cases, their whole lives — operating undercover. Within that circle, there appears to be mostly relief at the verdict. Larry Johnson, who was in Plame's CIA class and has remained a close friend, calls it "wonderful news."
Johnson adds, "I think there was a general perception that this government could get away with anything. With this verdict, the answer is, 'No it can't.'" Johnson sees the decision as a moment of vindication for his friend. But he says it shouldn't be the end of the Plame story — that more officials should be charged.

That's a view shared by Robert Richer, former No. 2 in the CIA's clandestine service.
"Someone made a conscious decision to disclose the identity of an operative working undercover," Richer says. "And I think that they should be held accountable. It is a criminal offense."
It's not looking likely, though, that anyone will be held accountable. Lead prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says no additional charges will be filed. That means Libby, who was convicted on charges of lying and obstructing justice, will be the only person to stand trial in the matter — and no one will charged with the actual leak.
Richer finds this troublesome. Valerie Plame's outing, he argues, had consequences not just for her personal safety, but for everyone she had contact with in the field. But Richer says the Libby trial, though flawed, was still worthwhile.
"I do think it got a message across. How do you value a compromised national security operation, or an agent's life? So if this cost us a number of millions of dollars to prosecute this case, and it took up a lot of time... When someone gets ready to disclose this type of information again and they think, 'You know what, I could be held accountable,' then it's probably well worth whatever we paid for it."

But another former CIA officer, Bob Baer, takes away a very different message from the Libby trial. Baer spent 21 years as a covert operative in the Middle East. He worries that the lack of indictments for administration officials beyond Libby leaves the door open for more leaks in future.
"You know, we used to talk in the CIA — 'Can we protect our sources, can we protect our identities?' And the answer is no," Baer says. "Because exposing Valerie Plame was so widespread across the administration, and no one's been charged for exposing her identity."
Baer says he thinks that the takeaway message of what's come to be known as "Plamegate" is this: "If you're sitting in Baghdad or Kabul or anywhere else, you can be exposed by someone else in the government. And there's no consequences."
This view is not universal, though. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. But former senior official Rob Richer remains convinced that the vast majority of government officials understand and respect clandestine operations.
"This in many ways is an anomaly," Richer says. "This has not happened often. You had a weakening here. You had a disclosure for political need. That's a problem. I don't think it'll be repeated."

Share this Page


E-mail this Page


READ THIS AND SEE THE NAMES AND THE LIBBY TRIAL "WORTHWHILE" THE CIA WANTS MORE INDICTMENTS CITE DISCLOSURE WAS FOR A POLITICAL NEED, "THAT'S A PROBLEM"


PLEASE SAVE THE SELF SERVING BUT, BUT, BUT, DENAIL NONSENSE........


miguel

mike60
08-08-2008, 06:20 PM
ERWS meeting canceled just wade in place.

miguel

jayalley
08-08-2008, 07:16 PM
I know Scooter Libby and he's twice the man that you are, you little weenie.

mike60
08-08-2008, 07:58 PM
You lying wingbat whore. Scooter told me you were impotent and dressed funny.

miguel

ERWS meeting back on, tide went out.

mike60
08-12-2008, 12:37 AM
Ok I'll take the no answer as yes.

miguel

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 02:22 AM
He was found guilty of obstructing the investigation into learning exactly who, and all those involved, in outing a covert, NOC CIA SECRET AGENT!

Only the Bush Administration, Bush, Cheney, Libby and Rove had both knowledge of her status, and a motive for outing her. They used Armitage, and their friends in the media to do their dirty work, Armitage, unwittingly.

Robert Novak was never anything but a right wing operative for Republicans anyway, and a known patsy for Rove for decades.

Ed, don't ever call anyone else hypocritical, or insinuate that they deny the facts, or are blind bahing sheep, when it is obvious that you refuse to accept the obvious about the outing of Valarie Plame, by the Bush Administration, because of your partisanship loyalty to this criminal Repiglican administration.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
08-12-2008, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed, don't ever call anyone else hypocritical, or insinuate that they deny the facts, or are blind bahing sheep, when it is obvious that you refuse to accept the obvious about the outing of Valarie Plame, by the Bush Administration, because of your partisanship loyalty to this criminal Repiglican administration.
</div></div>Gayle you are someone else's mother (thank God) so you can do all your demanding with them. With me you are just blowing more hot air. I will say whatever I please. Whether my posts are hypocritical or not, that does not take away from the fact that you are the most hypocritical person on this board.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 08:33 AM
Ed, don't ever call anyone else hypocritical, or insinuate that they deny the facts, or are blind bahing sheep, when it is obvious that you refuse to accept the obvious about the outing of Valarie Plame, by the Bush Administration, because of your partisanship loyalty to this criminal Repiglican administration.

Gee, you can't even state facts like those, without him taking offense.
Have a good day...don't let the misanthropes, misogynists, or even the more liberal Republicans get you down.

wolfdancer
08-12-2008, 08:36 AM
I think the entire Bush cabinet should be sitting in jail awaiting execution, and any wingnuts that still support them should have to wear dunce caps

Gayle in MD
08-12-2008, 08:52 AM
LOL, forgive me if I think you are in no position to make that determination.

As for demands, it was just a suggestion, but I suppose there was too much truth in it to absorb the automatic rightwing Nut truth filter.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

eg8r
08-12-2008, 11:59 AM
The determination has already been made and it stands no matter who first mentioned it. You have 7 years of proof going against you.

eg8r

mike60
08-12-2008, 04:53 PM
eg8r seen drying in the sun after long wade in the Egyptian River.

mike60