# Please explain the Libby trial to me. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 14, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271 "2007-02-14T22:28:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sonia\_Montdore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@Sonia\_Montdore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sonia_Montdore)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2007, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/1 "2007-02-14T22:28:04Z")
Can someone kindly catch me up as to what the Libby trial is all about? Somewhere along the way I lost the plot. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2007, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/2 "2007-02-14T22:40:44Z")
[QUOTE=Sonia Montdore] Can someone kindly catch me up as to what the Libby trial is all about? Somewhere along the way I lost the plot. Thanks. [/QUOTE] Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA operative. Her cover was blown. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, made statements during the investigation that appear to have been lies. That’s perjury, a felony. Right now he’s on trial for interfering with the investigation. If enough evidence emerges during the perjury trial to implicate someone in the crime of revealing Mrs. Wilson’s name, that person will be prosecuted as well. ---
**Author:** ![MrFloppy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@MrFloppy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrFloppy)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2007, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/3 "2007-02-14T23:07:52Z")
[QUOTE=Pochacco] Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA operative. Her cover was blown. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, made statements during the investigation that appear to have been lies. That’s perjury, a felony. Right now he’s on trial for interfering with the investigation. If enough evidence emerges during the perjury trial to implicate someone in the crime of revealing Mrs. Wilson’s name, that person will be prosecuted as well. [/QUOTE] I thought Richard Armitage was revealed as Novak’s source? He is being sued in civil court but why not in criminal court? ---
**Author:** ![Sonia\_Montdore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@Sonia\_Montdore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sonia_Montdore)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2007, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/4 "2007-02-15T00:51:29Z")
[QUOTE=Pochacco] Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA operative. Her cover was blown. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, made statements during the investigation that appear to have been lies. That’s perjury, a felony. Right now he’s on trial for interfering with the investigation. If enough evidence emerges during the perjury trial to implicate someone in the crime of revealing Mrs. Wilson’s name, that person will be prosecuted as well. [/QUOTE] Thanks, **Pochacco.** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2007, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/5 "2007-02-15T04:28:05Z")
[QUOTE=MrFloppy] I thought Richard Armitage was revealed as Novak’s source? He is being sued in civil court but why not in criminal court? [/QUOTE] First, it’s important to understand that there were several leakers. The investigation revealed that several sources leaked the fact that Wilson’s wife was a CIA employee. Both Armitage and Karl Rove gave Novak the info. Rove also leaked the info to Matt Cooper of the NY Times. Armitage also leaked it to Bob Woodward. Ari Fleischer gave the info to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, David Gregory of NBC News, John Dickerson of Time magazine, and possibly others. Libby leaked it to Judith Miller of the NY Times. There is some dispute as to whether Libby also had a conversation with NBC’s Tim Russert on the subject Second, I think the conclusion of the investigation was that no crime was committed in disclosing Wilson’s identity. I say “I think,” because all we know in the end is that nobody was indicted for committing those crimes, even though the source and circumstances of the leaks is fairly well documented. The prosecutor has declined to say why he did not indict anyone, so we are left to speculate as to why. But I think the bottom line is that no crime was committed by making this leak. [QUOTE=Pochacco] If enough evidence emerges during the perjury trial to implicate someone in the crime of revealing Mrs. Wilson’s name, that person will be prosecuted as well. [/QUOTE] I suppose, but I don’t think there was any expectation that this would happen. (The defense rested today). There are some who suggest that Libby lied to cover up a crime, in other words, that somebody else leaked the info in a way that constitutes a crime, and he lied about it to prevent prosecution. But the facts of the case don’t support that, I dont think. The essence is that Libby just lied about things that could be checked against other sources… ie, conversations with other people, white house meetings. His motivations remain unclear. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2007, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/6 "2007-02-15T04:42:00Z")
Libby decided to play the FBI by lying to them and got caught. Odd thing is that what he was lying about may not (technically) have been a crime after all. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2007, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/7 "2007-02-15T08:38:51Z")
[QUOTE=anson2995] Second, I think the conclusion of the investigation was that no crime was committed in disclosing Wilson’s identity. I say “I think,” because all we know in the end is that nobody was indicted for committing those crimes, even though the source and circumstances of the leaks is fairly well documented. The prosecutor has declined to say why he did not indict anyone, so we are left to speculate as to why. But I think the bottom line is that no crime was committed by making this leak. [/QUOTE] This is from a transcript of the press conference held by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in this case, when the indictment against Scooter Libby was announced (the whole transcript is at [Department of Justice | Homepage | United States Department of Justice](http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf) - **PDF warning** ): > [@](#): > > QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn’t lead to a charge of leaking? > > MR. FITZGERALD: . . . Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn’t result in a charge? I’ve been trying to think about how to explain so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. > > If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head and really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that. You’d wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, “I’ve got bad blood with this batter, he hit two homeruns off me, I’m just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can.” You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped and he had no idea that any – throw the ball anywhere near the batter’s head. And there’s a lot of shades of gray in between. You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back, it hit in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it at his chin, but end up hitting on the head. And what you’d want to do is have as much information as you could. You’d want to know what happened in the dugout, was this guy complaining about the person he threw out? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things, you’d want to know. And then you’d make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball,whether they should be suspended, whether you should nothing at all and just say, “Hey, the person threw a bad pitch, get over it.” > > In this case, it’s a lot more serious than baseball. The damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t to Valerie Wilson, it was done to all of us. As you sit back, you want to learn why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell a Press Secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused or did he intend to do something else? And where are the shades of gray? > > And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure out what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now and if you’re asking me what his motives were, I can’t tell you, we haven’t charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is that it prevents us from making the very fine judgments we want to make. In other words, the grand jury didn’t indict anyone for leaking Plame’s status as a spy because Fitzgerald believed Libby’s behavior obfuscated the case too much. Fitzgerald didn’t say at the time that there was no illegal leak, only that with Libby’s alleged perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators it wasn’t possible to make a good case against any individual. I ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/8 "2007-02-15T19:49:12Z")
[QUOTE=MrFloppy] I thought Richard Armitage was revealed as Novak’s source? He is being sued in civil court but why not in criminal court? [/QUOTE] A lot of noise has been made over the concept that Armitage was the first to blow Mrs. Wilson’s cover to Mr. Novak. However, several reporters are involved; only Novak put the cover-blowing in print. Armitage was not the first to talk to all of the reporters. Matt Cooper, IIRC, heard it first from Karl Rove. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/9 "2007-02-16T16:29:21Z")
[QUOTE=Jeff Lichtman] In other words, the grand jury didn’t indict anyone for leaking Plame’s status as a spy because Fitzgerald believed Libby’s behavior obfuscated the case too much. Fitzgerald didn’t say at the time that there was no illegal leak, only that with Libby’s alleged perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators it wasn’t possible to make a good case against any individual. [/QUOTE] Yes, but this implies that Fitzgerald couldn’t find out who leaked the information. On the contrary, I think the flow of leaks was documented pretty clearly. For example, there’s no doubt that Armitage leaked the info to Bob Woodward… the conversation is on tape, and Armitage appears to have admitted what he did from the outset. Why then was Armitage not charged? Fitzgerald refused to answer that questions at his press conference (you posted the relevant quote). The prosecutor knew precisely what Armitage did and when, regardless of what Libby did to throw sand in his eyes. The only conclusion I think we can reach is that Fitzgerald concluded that Armitage’s disclosure did not violate any law. That’s the central legal issue of this case, and I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been any official explanation. Did Wilson not meet the statutory definition of covert agent? Is an accidental disclosure not a violation of the law? If one person leaks the story on Monday, is a leak by someone else on Tuesday ok? We just haven’t been offered any specific answers. The public focus appears to be more on the political issues, and frankly that’s just boring. ---
**Author:** ![CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CC)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/10 "2007-02-16T16:53:34Z")
[QUOTE=astro] Libby decided to play the FBI by lying to them and got caught. Odd thing is that what he was lying about may not (technically) have been a crime after all. [/QUOTE] Maybe not, but he was possibly lying to protect Cheney. Clearly, the pres and the veep were terribly concerned about the public’s questioning of the Iraq invasion. That’s been documented recently. My belief about the higher levels of our government right now is that to them legality is not of prime concern. Their fidelity to their ideology and to their superiors trumps the law. It’s an old story with this crowd. (Remember Watergate?) ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/11 "2007-02-16T17:24:13Z")
[QUOTE=anson2995] The prosecutor knew precisely what Armitage did and when, regardless of what Libby did to throw sand in his eyes. The only conclusion I think we can reach is that Fitzgerald concluded that Armitage’s disclosure did not violate any law. [/QUOTE] I can only speculate on Fitzgerald’s thinking, but I suspect the problem (from his point of view) is that Libby was claiming that the information was already public - that he learned about Plame’s status as a CIA agent from Tim Russert. Armitage’s lawyers would certainly use this in his defense if Fitzgerald were to prosecute the leak - a fact that’s public knowledge can’t be a secret. That would put the burden on Fitzgerald to show in his prosecution of Armitage that Libby was lying, turning the case against Armitage into a case against Libby. A good defense lawyer could probably use this to create reasonable doubt of Armitage’s guilt. It’s possible that, if Libby is found guilty, Fitzgerald will then try to get indictments against the other accused leakers (like Armitage and Rove). The job of prosecuting them will be much easier if they can’t hide behind Libby’s claim that Plame’s status was already public knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/12 "2007-02-16T21:49:50Z")
Wait, who’s this Valerie Wilson person? I thought her name was Plame. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/13 "2007-02-16T22:02:21Z")
[QUOTE=astro] Libby decided to play the FBI by lying to them and got caught. Odd thing is that what he was lying about may not (technically) have been a crime after all. [/QUOTE] Of course, the reason it is technically not a crime is because the administration declassified the stuff he was talking about but not telling anyone they declassified it thus making it a secret declassification which is just strange. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/14 "2007-02-16T22:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Wait, who’s this Valerie Wilson person? I thought her name was Plame. [/QUOTE] Her maiden name is Plame, but she took the name of her husband, Joe Wilson, after she married him. ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-libby-trial-to-me/392271/15 "2007-02-16T22:16:10Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Wait, who’s this Valerie Wilson person? I thought her name was Plame. [/QUOTE] Professional (maiden) name Plame. Married name Wilson. Code name Flying Fish (not really, I don’t know)