In recent articles, syndicated columnists Cal Thomas and Thomas Sowell both misleadingly dismissed the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, as a simple matter of differing recollections. In fact, the indictment on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements alleges that Libby falsely told a federal grand jury and FBI investigators that he learned from reporters that Valerie Plame (the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV) worked for the CIA. Contrary to Libby's assertion, the indictment alleges that Libby had nine separate discussions with various government officials about Plame, many taking place before his first conversation with reporters on the subject.

In his column, Thomas argued:

Mr. Libby is not being tried for “outing” Mrs. Plame, but for his statements about her to three journalists, what he said and when he said it. They have one recollection and he has another ... Try remembering what you told someone last week. Should you be indicted if your recollection is different from theirs?

Sowell's column similarly contended:

The case against Lewis Libby consists essentially of the fact he remembers various conversations with reporters differently from how those reporters remember them.

Any married couple who have gone on vacation together and come back with the husband remembering some things differently from how the wife remembers them can see why this can be a hard case in which to prove perjury, much less the original crime that was supposed to be investigated.

However, the indictment thoroughly details more than a case of differing recollections of conversations. The indictment states that Libby told FBI investigators in 2003 and a federal grand jury in 2004 that he first learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from journalist Tim Russert of NBC in July 2003. The indictment then documents nine separate instances from June through July 2003 during which Libby discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA status with various government sources.

The indictment also describes conversations between Libby and reporters Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times. Libby reported to FBI investigators that he had spoken to Cooper but not Miller, a statement he changed in front of the grand jury when he conceded speaking to both Cooper and Miller. The indictment alleges that Libby falsely testified that he told Cooper and Miller he had learned of Wilson's wife from other reporters; rather, the indictment asserts, he categorically told both reporters that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA.

Both Thomas and Sowell also emphasized in their columns that Libby is not being tried for the actual outing of Valerie Plame, ignoring that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald made clear in announcing the indictment that Libby's false statements are precisely what have obscured attempts to definitively determine the circumstances of Plame's outing. According to Fitzgerald's October 28 press release:

Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.

Finally, Thomas blamed the volume of coverage the Libby indictment has received on a “big media agenda,” saying that the indictment has received far greater coverage than the indictments of former Clinton agricultural secretary Mike Espy and housing secretary Henry Cisneros during the 1990s. But Thomas's comparison ignored key differences between those situations and the current one. Unlike Libby, neither Cisneros nor Espy were members of the administration at the time of their respective indictments, nor had either served in the White House [The New York Times, 12/12/97, 8/28/97]. In fact, Libby's indictment is the first of an aide working at the White House in more than 130 years. Finally, Espy was indicted for offering political favors in exchange for gifts (he was later acquitted of the charges), and Cisneros ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about money he had given to a former mistress; neither case involved matters of national security.

From Thomas's October 31 nationally syndicated column:

Mr. Libby is not being tried for “outing” Mrs. Plame, but for his statements about her to three journalists, what he said and when he said it. They have one recollection and he has another. For that he faces up to 30 years in prison? Try remembering what you told someone last week. Should you be indicted if your recollection is different from theirs?

The big media agenda can be discerned from the saturation coverage they gave Mr. Libby's indictments and the short shrift given indictments of several Clinton administration officials.

When a multiple indictment was handed down against Clinton's agriculture secretary, Mike Espy (later acquitted on all 30 charges), most broadcast networks relayed the news in a sentence or two. It was the same with Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, indicted on multiple counts for misleading the FBI about payoffs to a mistress. Mr. Cisneros later plea-bargained to a single misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI.

The Media Research Center noted then the Cisneros indictment generated 18 seconds on ABC's “World News Tonight,” while the CBS “Evening News” didn't get to it until the next day, then allocated it just nine seconds, choosing to focus, instead, on a two-minute report about how El Nino was affecting butterflies. Only NBC bothered with a full report the day of the indictment. The following morning, “Today” gave it a few seconds, but neither ABC's “Good Morning America,” nor CBS' “This Morning” mentioned Mr. Cisneros the day after the indictment.

From Sowell's November 1 nationally syndicated column:

In the case of Lewis Libby, the case against him consists essentially of the fact that he remembers various conversations with reporters differently from the way those reporters remember those conversations.

Any married couple who have gone on vacation together and come back with the husband remembering some things differently from the way the wife remembers them can see why this can be a hard case in which to prove perjury, much less the original crime that was supposed to be investigated.