More facts on the Libby Case seep out (updated)

The further redacted affidavits filed in the Miller case are now available online. Two interesting facts have struck Just One Minute commenters as we skim through this newly available material.

First, Fitzgerald granted Ari Fleischer immunity without requiring him to provide waivers, so that Fitzgerald could not confirm Ari's story with reporters. This seems remarkable, and when you add to it that Fitzgerald claimed in court that he granted immunity to Fleischer without having any idea what he'd testify to, it is astonishing. It may explain why he believed for so long that Libby had been the source to Walter Pincus, who at trial testified it was not Libby, but Fleischer who told him about Plame.

More interesting perhaps is that Armitage falsely denied that he'd told any reporter before Novak. Among the interesting tidbits available now in the latest unsealing of redactions:
48. The investigation of Armitage's conduct is near complete and, indeed, Armitage testified for the second (and final) time before the grand jury on September 22, 2004. Armitage testified that he did not recall discussing Wilson's employment with any reporter other than Novak prior to July 14, 2003, and specifically denied any recollection of discussing the matter with Cooper or any of his Time colleagues.
Not only was this false--Armitage had told Bob Woodward in June of 2003-- but it ignores that he had refused repeatedly to grant Woodward a waiver to tell that to the investigators:

Here's Woodward's account of his efforts to tell the investigators: 

Nov. 21st 2005 -

LARRY KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can

-----

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

and

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.
It's easy to see why the prosecution fought so hard to keep this material from the public eye. I can't wait to see the still redacted portions of the prosecutor's affidavit and the opinion.

Each bit of information makes this prosecution look more focused on finding a scapegoat--Libby- than on finding out the truth.

Hat tip: Mjw, ts, elliott


Clarice Feldman

Update:

Tom Maguire finds more puzzling information in the recently redacted affidavits:

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miller and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time.  Useful details about Armitage might be there.  However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12.  The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.




 
The further redacted affidavits filed in the Miller case are now available online. Two interesting facts have struck Just One Minute commenters as we skim through this newly available material.

First, Fitzgerald granted Ari Fleischer immunity without requiring him to provide waivers, so that Fitzgerald could not confirm Ari's story with reporters. This seems remarkable, and when you add to it that Fitzgerald claimed in court that he granted immunity to Fleischer without having any idea what he'd testify to, it is astonishing. It may explain why he believed for so long that Libby had been the source to Walter Pincus, who at trial testified it was not Libby, but Fleischer who told him about Plame.

More interesting perhaps is that Armitage falsely denied that he'd told any reporter before Novak. Among the interesting tidbits available now in the latest unsealing of redactions:
48. The investigation of Armitage's conduct is near complete and, indeed, Armitage testified for the second (and final) time before the grand jury on September 22, 2004. Armitage testified that he did not recall discussing Wilson's employment with any reporter other than Novak prior to July 14, 2003, and specifically denied any recollection of discussing the matter with Cooper or any of his Time colleagues.
Not only was this false--Armitage had told Bob Woodward in June of 2003-- but it ignores that he had refused repeatedly to grant Woodward a waiver to tell that to the investigators:

Here's Woodward's account of his efforts to tell the investigators: 

Nov. 21st 2005 -

LARRY KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can

-----

I made efforts to get the source, this year, earlier, and last year, to give me some information about this so I could put something in the newspaper or a book. So, I could get information out, and totally failed.

and

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.
It's easy to see why the prosecution fought so hard to keep this material from the public eye. I can't wait to see the still redacted portions of the prosecutor's affidavit and the opinion.

Each bit of information makes this prosecution look more focused on finding a scapegoat--Libby- than on finding out the truth.

Hat tip: Mjw, ts, elliott


Clarice Feldman

Update:

Tom Maguire finds more puzzling information in the recently redacted affidavits:

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miller and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time.  Useful details about Armitage might be there.  However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12.  The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.