Hume declared Libby "not responsible" for Plame leak
SUMMARY: Brit Hume asserted as fact that Lewis
"Scooter" Libby was "not responsible" for leaking the
information that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. However, Libby's indictment alleges that he did discuss Plame's CIA employment with reporter Judith Miller before
it was made public, and Miller
herself reported this.
On the January 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host and Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume asserted as fact that Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was "not responsible" for leaking the information that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. However, Libby's indictment does allege that he discussed Plame's CIA employment with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller before Plame's employment was publicly revealed by Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003, column. And, after sitting in jail for 85 days, Miller herself identified Libby as her source for the information on Plame.
After discussing events that day at Libby's trial, Hume stated that "Libby is accused of lying about what he heard from whom and whom he told in the leak of the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame, a leak for which he was not responsible." As Media Matters for America has noted, Plame is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who, in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, cast doubt on President Bush's claims about Iraq's purported attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Novak's column revealing Plame's CIA employment was based on information from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, which was allegedly confirmed by White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
While Libby did not divulge Plame's identity to Novak, prosecutors have alleged that Libby did discuss Plame's CIA employment with Miller on three occasions prior to the publication of Novak's column. As Media Matters has noted, the indictment special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed against Libby on October 28, 2005, asserts that Libby mentioned Plame's CIA employment to Miller on June 23, July 8, and July 12:
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
As Media Matters has noted, whether leakers identified Plame by her name -- "Valerie Plame" or "Valerie Wilson" -- or as "Wilson's wife" is irrelevant, as a practical matter, because a quick Google search of Joseph Wilson at the time would have produced Plame's actual name.
In addition, in an October 16, 2005, New York Times article, Miller reported what she told the grand jury about the June 23 and July 8 meetings with Libby:
In May and in early June, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist at The Times, wrote of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger without naming him. Mr. Kristof wrote that Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger "at the behest" of Mr. Cheney's office.
My notes [from the June 23, 2003, meeting] indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. "Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson," I wrote, referring to the vice president. "Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us."
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. As to the question mark, I said I wasn't sure what it meant. Maybe it meant I found the statement interesting. Maybe Mr. Libby was not certain whether Mr. Wilson's wife actually worked there.
[...]
At that [July 8, 2003] breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.
I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.
From the January 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: It was slow going again today at the federal courthouse here in Washington as lawyers continued to put together a jury to hear perjury charges against former White House aide Scooter Libby. One potential juror, who made the first cut, at least, is an unnamed former Washington Post reporter who wrote a book on espionage and said he could be impartial, even though he had connections to several key witnesses.
Libby is accused of lying about what he heard from whom and whom he told in the leak of the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame, a leak for which he was not responsible.
Next on Special Report, another bloody attack in Iraq, not far from yesterday's deadly explosions at that Baghdad university. That story when we return.















is a lying, whoring charlatan. This is ambigous doubletalk. Libby in fact DID have conversations with Judith Miller about Valerie Plame's covert identity and/or operations. He may not have leaked it to Novak, but he did leak it to a media figure. He's trying to use this deliberately deceptive ambiguity here in order to fool his rapidly thinning flock of sheep.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Kudos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said it the best.
..For Saying what I wanted to say.
I can't stand Fume uh.. I mean Hume.
...I guess that pretty much wraps it up, no? Thanks, Britt.
that any of the reporters who have testified have told anything but the truth. because they have nothing to lie about [except novak], and don't need to risk a perjury charge. and what the reporters and media figures like russert have said is consistently the same. they were told of plame's status by libby and rove, not the other way around as the two of them have claimed. this was obviously just what joe wilson said from the beginning, an organized effort to get back at him by going after his wife. "fair game", as rove said of her. and the fact that rove still sits in the white house, when he should have been fired on the spot for violating his security oath, proves that bush's claims of protecting us are nothing but self serving nonsense. people all over the world have heard this story, and they have to ask themselves if i cooperate with the americans, can i be revealed to my government and eliminated.
what he did or didn't do. The issue is whether he perjured himself before the grand jury. If that is enough to impeach a president and spend 50 million dollars on a self-serving witch hunt, it ought to be enough to send another republican staffer to jail until bush (lowercase intentional) can issue the pardons 24 months from now.
I doubt he'd be sent to some supermax prison on 24 hour a day lockdown. Hopefully though, someone can help him plug that leak.
he'll be pardoned before long anyway. But Britt is just being a shill again here. He wasn't charged with the crime but many have testified he is the one that told them about Plame's identity so he is responsible for her name being leaked. Is Britt incredibly dumb or just doesn't care about facts? A little of both I suspect.
Why does Armitage get a pass on this?
People have said it is because he is not a big supporter of Bush or he is a moderate, fine. It is a moot point.
The administration wasn't just going after Plame/Wilson because it hurt President Bush and the neocon agenda, it was hurting their reasoning for the Iraq War.
Woodward even announced that Armitage had no axe to grind. I beg to differ.
Most people (including Woodward) seem to forget that Armitage was a member of PNAC and had a reasonable motive to defend the Iraq War decision by attacking Plame/Wilson.
What am I missing here? Why don't the media clear this up? I haven't seen where anyone mentions Armitage's membership in PNAC and how that might affect his motives.
i knew jeb bush was. and of course they needed their new "pearl harbor" to get the public behind their stated goal of the invasion of iraq
Read his book Hubris, written with Michael Isikoff, and check out his davidcorn.com site. The book really gets into the Plame leak. If I remember correctly (and I might not have this all straight), Armitage was a blabber who liked to gossip, and he really might not have meant to blow anyone's cover. And even though he was something of an Iraq hawk, he was personally sympathetic to his boss, Powell, and not the sort to do Cheney's bidding. When Armitage realized what he had done, he 'fessed up to the special prosecutor and didn't try to cover up. That bought him some slack. Meanwhile, Rove and Libby were blabbing, no doubt maliciously -- Libby at Cheney's behest and Rove just because he's evil and like Cheney and Libby wanted to discredit Wilson. It ended up being unwise to try to indict anyone for the leak itself, at least in Fitzgerald's opinion, because the law put an extremely heavy burden on him to prove that the leakers knew for sure that she was undercover CIA and they were leaking with intent to damage the security of the US. So, it then became a question of whether anyone lied to him during the investigation, which could lead to obstruction of justice or perjury charges. Armitage 'fessed up, and Rove managed to weasel out by changing his story to something approximating the truth, and there not being multiple witnesses to contradict his "I forgot" recanting of his earlier lying BS. Libby wasn't so fortunate, in that several reporters could and did contradict his earlier testimony, which amounted to Libby's saying that he knew about Plame (because Cheney had commissioned him to find out), forgot what he knew, and failed to remember what he had known when reporters brought up the subject. So, Libby didn't really do anything worse than Rove or Cheney, but he had the misfortune to have several other witnesses who could directly contradict his earlier testimony. Anyway, it's too bad we can't impeach the lot of them and then try and convict them of defrauding the people of the United States, and then let them break rocks in prison until, oh, I don't know, they've repaid the people for all the money we've wasted in Iraq, and until all the hurt and loss caused to our troops and their loved ones have faded away.
but it's not going to happen with the way things are now; Cable news and am radio explaining away all of the BS, and blaming everybody else, and the rest of the "liberal media" still pretty timid about doing any journallism.
The optimistic side of me- seems like more Ameicans are figuring out they're being had, maybe it will help the media get to work.
If I read this right at the time, the reason Armitage gets a pass on this is he convinced Fitz that he inadvertantly disclosed the information. I think the way the law is written the disclosure has to be intentional. This would still be a security violation but not an illegal act.
I think a couple of the posts do a pretty good job here, especially the summary of Cohen's work, but the balance of your question regarding the media remains ... and will remain ... avoided in the mainstream, where it is the responsibility of the media to put before us what Fitzgerald's legal limitations built into the criminal process preclude his being able to do. He has done all he can in pointing out the fact that it is perjury like that committed by Libby that prevents a successful criminal indictment and conviction for retaliatory disclosure of an agent's identity for political purposes that makes the prosecution of Libby so essential. That is, if he (along with who else he and we can only guess) lie about what was said and done, he can't get convictions agaisnt those who may have violated the criminal laws designed to protect agents.
But that doesn't mean the media can't do it! As O.J. learned, there is a difference between proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and proving fault by a preponderance of the evidence, and the standard for protecting the media's discussion of public figures' potentially criminal conduct is lower yet...no reckless disregard for the truth? No liable.
"no liability for libel."
Why don't you wait until the trial is OVER, and you've learned the VERDICT, before you SPECULATE on him being "not responsible" . . . that way, whenever the verdict is announced, you can REPORT it . . . like REAL REPORTERS do.