David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation and the co-author, along with Michael Isikoff, of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War. He is covering the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial for The Nation.
Here’s a primer for those of you who have not obsessively followed the CIA leak case of Scooter Libby now underway.
Who is I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby?
He is the former chief of staff and national security adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney. A neocon in fine standing, he was a leading advocate for the invasion of Iraq. He helped assemble the first draft of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s U.N. speech laying out the case for war. That draft contained allegations about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs that were so flimsy that Larry Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff, tossed it aside. Before serving as Cheney’s top aide, Libby was a corporate lawyer. His most prominent client was fugitive financier Marc Rich (who was pardoned by outgoing President Clinton). Libby has written one novel, which contains graphic scenes of sexual bestiality. He is married to a former Democratic congressional aide.
What is he charged with?
One count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. Essentially, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald accused Libby of having lied to FBI agents and a grand jury investigating whether a crime had been committed when Bush administration officials in the summer of 2003 leaked to journalists—mainly, rightwing columnist Robert Novak—the CIA identity of Valerie (Plame) Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration’s Iraq policy.
What was the lie?
If there was one, that is. Libby told the FBI and the grand jury a convoluted story. He acknowledged that Cheney in mid-June 2003 had told him about Valerie Wilson’s job at the CIA (before the leak occurred) but that he totally forgot that information. Then, his story went, a few weeks later—after Wilson had triggered a firestorm with an op-ed claiming he had inside information demonstrating the White House had twisted the prewar intelligence—Libby learned about Wilson’s wife and her CIA connection from journalists. After that, Libby claimed, he shared this scuttlebutt (not the official and classified information he had received from Cheney) with other reporters.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Plenty. Libby says he heard about Valerie Wilson from Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s "Meet the Press." Russert has denied he discussed her with Libby, noting he did not know anything about Valerie Wilson at the time of his conversation with Libby. Matt Cooper of Time says Libby confirmed Valerie Wilson’s CIA status for him. And the notes of Judith Miller of The New York Times indicate Libby also passed information to her about Wilson’s wife. This suggests that Libby was telling reporters about Valerie Wilson, not receiving information from them.
Moreover, Fitzgerald has presented evidence and testimony indicating that Libby actively sought from the CIA and the State Department information on Joseph Wilson and that these requests produced information regarding his wife’s employment at the CIA. And as Michael Isikoff and I revealed in Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War , Libby was quite obsessed with the Wilson imbroglio—so much so that he was monitoring cable news coverage of it and complaining to his aides about Chris Matthews’ allegation that Libby was connected to the administration’s use of misleading intelligence. Given all this, could Libby really have quickly forgotten all that he had known about Valerie Wilson before his supposed call with Russert?
People forget all sorts of things, don’t they?
Yes, they do. But Libby told the investigators that when Russert told him about Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment he was “taken aback.” Given that his boss had told him the same thing weeks earlier, could he truly have been surprised? If he had actually forgotten, wouldn’t the Russert phone call have reminded him rather than stunned him? His story to the FBI and grand jury was not merely that he had forgotten about Valerie Wilson but he had failed to remember what he had known yet had forgotten.
Sounds complicated.
I told you it was convoluted.
What does Fitzgerald have to do to win a conviction?
He needs to present witnesses and evidence showing that (a) Libby did seek and obtain information on the Wilsons to such an extent that it is implausible that he had forgotten about this in a few weeks’ time and that (b) the reporters who spoke to Libby contradict his account. Fitzgerald must prove that Libby concocted a cover story—sloppy as it was—to mask his involvement in the leak scandal.
But Libby’s defenders say he had no motive to lie, that no crime was committed, and that the outing of Valerie Wilson was no big deal.
It’s true that Fitzgerald ultimately decided not to charge Libby or anyone else (most notably, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and White House strategist Karl Rove, who were Novak’s sources for the Plame leak) with violating the poorly-written law prohibiting government officials from disclosing information about undercover CIA officers. (And Valerie Wilson was indeed a covert employee; she was operations chief of the Counterproliferation Division’s Joint Task Force on Iraq.) But when Libby was first questioned by the FBI, no one knew that no such charges would be filed. If he had passed along any information on Valerie Wilson, he had reason to fear being snared in a prosecution. And he also had an interest in protecting Cheney—and keeping the vice president as much out of the picture as possible. His notes reflected that Cheney had spoken to him about Valerie Wilson and her CIA job. But his statements to the FBI and grand jury replaced Cheney as the source of the information Libby provided to reporters with Russert.
There’s more. Libby’s CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, testified on Wednesday that he told Libby and Cheney that the Plame leak could lead to the harassment, torture and death of people overseas who had contact with Valerie Wilson when she served abroad as a clandestine CIA officer. Libby certainly would not want himself or Cheney to be associated with a leak that led to such events. And the White House had declared that anyone involved with the leak would be dismissed. That gave Libby—who allegedly leaked information on Valerie Wilson to two reporters—further incentive to hide his role.
Yeah, what about that White House vow? Is it still operative?
Where have you been? It was proven that Rove leaked Valerie Wilson’s CIA relationship to Cooper (when Isikoff revealed a Cooper email in Newsweek in 2005). Rove also confirmed Armitage’s leak to Novak. But has he been pink-slipped at 1600 Pennsylvania? And during the opening arguments at the Libby trial, it was disclosed that Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary when the Wilson affair began, had leaked information about Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment to NBC News’ David Gregory and that White House communications director Dan Bartlett (in addition to Libby) had told Fleischer about Valerie Wilson’s CIA tie. Fleischer left the White House in the middle of the leak scandal. But Bartlett is still punching the clock at the White House.
So what’s Libby’s legal strategy?
As I’ve noted elsewhere, “To get a graphic representation of [Libby’s legal team’s] argument, take a large pot of spaghetti—with plenty of sauce—and hurl it against the wall. Then look at the wall.” On the mundane level, Libby’s attorneys will do all they can to raise questions about the memories and motives of the prosecution’s witness. That’s what any defense attorney tries to do, and they’ve already scored a few points. But Libby’s lawyers are also attempting to place the case within a swirl of complicated narratives and conspiracies: Karl Rove set him up. A CYAing CIA was out to blame the White House for the faulty prewar intelligence—and targeted Libby. Libby was sent into the “meat grinder” (as a newly revealed Cheney note put it) to rebut inaccurate charges leveled against the White House, and he’s now being punished for that. The State Department was to blame for the leak. The prosecutors have cut improper deals with media witnesses to do in Libby. It doesn’t all make sense. It doesn’t have to. If Libby’s attorneys cannot discredit the prosecution’s witnesses, they want to bewilder the jurors. They just need one who will say this is all such a tangled mess I cannot be sure enough of the facts to convict this man. Confusion is their friend.
Is this case about the war?
Yes—and no. Fitzgerald and Libby’s lawyers have both told the jury that this case is neither about the Iraq war nor the controversy regarding the Bush administration’s prewar justification of the invasion of Iraq. But the case is about lying. And if Libby lied, he prevaricated to cover up wrongdoing that occurred as he and other administration officials mounted a fierce campaign to protect the case for war. A conviction would have symbolic value: Cheney’s Cheney would be proven a liar. He would be a stand-in for the entire White House. An acquittal would be cheered by conservatives and Libby’s partisans, but it wouldn’t do the White House much good. Bush will still be stuck in Iraq.
What will be the final verdict?
Sorry, we’re out of time.
