Fitzgerald Retreats on a Claim Critics Had Used Against Bush

[southernleftylady]

Mr. Fitzgerald's letter to the court, which was obtained last night by The New York Sun, offered no explanation for the error in the earlier filing. A spokesman for the prosecutor, Randall Samborn, said he was not authorized to comment on the development.

The reversal by Mr. Fitzgerald does not directly undercut the central disclosures in last week's government brief, namely that Mr. Libby told a grand jury that Mr. Cheney said he sought Mr. Bush's approval for the disclosure of information from the intelligence estimate to Ms. Miller and that the declassification took place without the knowledge of officials, such as the director of central intelligence, who were embarked on a parallel but slower-moving effort to review the report for declassification.

However, the prosecutor's revised account may disarm those who accused Messrs. Bush and Cheney of propagating a lie about the report's findings. The now-withdrawn assertion that Mr. Libby was ordered to tell a reporter that a secondary and disputed finding in the report was, in fact, a "key judgment" was featured in the second paragraph of a front-page New York Times story on Sunday arguing that the leak to Ms. Miller was skewed
http://www.nysun.com/article/30834?page_no=2

[HereSince1628]

1. It would seem DOJ climbed up Fitz' back for the political storm

his filing set off.

Come on George--Fire Fitzgerald!

We double dare you!!

[Nickster]

2. So he still says that Libby was told to give the information, just not

that the information was Key Judgements? Am I getting that right?

[HereSince1628]

3. I think so, but we'll be reading the filing this time tomorrow

so we'll know for sure then.

[MADem]

4. Two steps forward, one step back...dance, dance, dance!

However, in a letter yesterday, Mr. Fitzgerald advised the judge overseeing the case, Reggie Walton, that the government's April 5 filing was inaccurate. "We are writing to correct a sentence," Mr. Fitzgerald's letter begins. He told the judge an error occurred in the following statement: "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

The prosecutor said the government brief should have said, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

The statements summarized by the prosecutor in last week's filing and the new letter draw on testimony Mr. Libby gave to a grand jury investigating whether White House officials deliberately leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who challenged Mr. Bush's public assessment of Iraqi nuclear weapons efforts.

And they are saying this is a big change??? What am I missing?

[cynatnite]

7. Not much difference from what I can see...

that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium


some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium


:shrug: looks about the same. Doesn't change anything the way I read it.

[still_one]

8. spin spin spin

the results are still the same

[Roland99]

20. The minor difference is that the "vigorously tried" refers to a statement,

not a key judgment.

[still_one]

5. excuse me, didn't bush just admit that he declassified

the information, and authorized someone to leak it to the press?

[rodeodance]

9. you bet. this article is misleading

[MADem]

12. Well, it's the friken SUN--what else should we expect??? n/t

[rodeodance]

6. This is NOT a 'revesal--instead of 'the key', Fritz changes to

'some of the key"--meaning he has broadened his statement. There were other key judgments-in the NIE.
For me this is significant--as it allows that other key things were in the NIE statement (that were downplayed by the WH also)

Cleaver boy that Fritz.

[Dhalgren]

10. Right. This doesn't seem to me to be an automatic "good" for

Fearless Leader. We'll have to wait and see how the whores spin it...

[H2O Man]

11. Correct.

It is a step forward, not backwards. Sad that the administration supporters would pretend this helps them in any way. Pathetic that anyone would believe such nonsense.

[capi888]

13. Thanks H2O man!

I feel better now!!! These people never stop, sounds like he broadened his statement to me!!

[H2O Man]

18. Indeed he did.

There is a lot of "fuzzy misinformation" being spun on this. And after Team Libby files their motion today, we can expect a bit more. For this reason, I will again recommend that DUers watch David Schuster on MSNBC evenings this week ... on both Hardball and Countdown.

Earlier this week, David mentioned that there is going to be an increased focus on what Scooter talked to Ms. Miller about on the day in question. Fitzgerald's note to the court simply reflects that.

It is important to remember that when Bush/Cheney/Libby "declassified" the NIE, not only did they fail to let people other than Miller and Woodward in on it initially, but even after the early leaks, they didn't make the NIE public per say. In fact, significant parts remain classified.

More, in terms of the timing, keep in mind that in the 7-25-05 Time, in his article on his grand jury testimony, Matt Cooper wrote, "The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings."

The case will expand, not contract.

[stop the bleeding]

21. That was on July 11th 2003 correct? The Rove / Cooper exchange

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

3 days after the infamous breakfast meeting that Fibby and Snooty had. Hmmmm.

[H2O Man]

26. Yep.

On Friday, July 11 ..... "..on double super secret background..."

[capi888]

22. Whoa, Thanks again!

I like this part!

More, in terms of the timing, keep in mind that in the 7-25-05 Time, in his article on his grand jury testimony, Matt Cooper wrote, "The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings."
Says it all!!!! Also makes Rove a knowing conspirator in the release of the NIE!

[Beausoir]

15. Can you break if down more for me? I still don't get it.

Thank you in advance.

[Spazito]

19. I agree, this 'correction' is bad news for bush, imo

This says Fitzgerald will be dealing with OTHER key issues within the NIE that will further point to the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame for political reasons in order to trash Wilson's credibility as well as strengthen his case against Libby and any others he will be charging, imo.

[H2O Man]

24. Right.

It expands the prosecutor's options. That's a good thing.

[Catherine Vincent]

30. self delete

:-)

[rodeodance]

14. k

[Zen Democrat]

16. This is a distinction without a difference, IMO ...

This is the entire change:

Original Statement: "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

The prosecutor said the government brief should have said, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

[BR_Parkway]

27. So I wonder what other key judgements Libby told Miller - and how

do they relate to the reality that we learn daily now versus the lies and spin then?

I'm thinking of the big article this am about the WH knowing that the claim that they'd found the WMD (chemical factory trailers) was false but kept repeating it.

Yeah, Fitz may have been pressured to make a correction because of the political shit hitting the fan, but the way he worded said correction sure does open a bigger door.

[Zen Democrat]

17. DUPE

[Chomp]

23. The correction is good for Bush, bad for Cheney

My take:

>>> The original suggests that Cheney told Libbey to lie to Miller about the nature of the claim that Iraq was pursuing uranium by suggesting it was a "key judgement", when it was not. Original reads:

"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller...that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."


>>> Whereas the new version suggests that Cheney didn't tell him to lie that the uranium story was a "key judgement", rather that Libby was to divulge some "key judgements" AND also the story that Iraq was seeking uramium.

"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller...some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

____________________________________________________


The fact that Libby didn't suggest that the uranium claim was a "key judgement" doesn't to me seem to make much difference UNLESS Bush authorised the de-classifification/leak of the key judgements but Cheney/Libby went ahead and leaked more (i.e. the non-key uranium story). That may well be the case and would explain that odd question about de-classification in Cheney's recent Fox interview about the shooting. He was trying to explain early that he too has the power to declassify eve of the Prez didn#t authorise it.

Hence, I think the correction is good for Bush and bad for Cheney/Libby.

[WinkyDink]

25. Here is the difference:

"Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

The prosecutor said the government brief should have said, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

To wit:
A "judgment... that" something occurred is open to interpretation of the NIE. I.e., Bushco might have misread, misjudged, and thereby innocently misled Libby.

But when the NIE itself supposedly clearly "STATED (capitalizing mine) that" something occured, well, then; there you have it: Bushco can presumably read a straight-forward sentence, and if it ain't there, then claiming it is to Libby, is deliberately lying.

Conclusion: Better for Libby, worse for Bush/Cheney.

[Me.]

28. Sometimes A Cigar Is Just A Cigar

But when you add an *S* it becomes a whole lot of cigars

[Igel]

29. It's a trivial point. In a limited context, even a given trivial point

can loom large.

The claim that was batted about, with long proofs, even on some DU threads, is that the key judgments did not make the claim as presented by Libby. Some people compared the 10/02 and 7/03 editions of the key judgments, and looked at what the text said. Libby's claim wasn't in the key judgments. Therefore there was distortion and misrepresentation--"willful" often implied--of the key judgments to either defend * or discredit Wilson.

The distinction between the key judgments and the text is not crucial, IMHO; the key judgments may have been the bullet points, the take-away message, but the text was still there, albeit more accessibly rebutted in the footnote "annexes". After all, Libby took not the NIE with its key judgments, but an anonymously produced "abstract of the key judgments". But for some people, it was a big red flag.

It may be that Fitzgerald simply looked at the transcript again. A good prosecutor would want to make sure that he's not misrepresenting the transcript and testimony in such a pointless way. He may have altered it because without a meticulous parsing of the transcript it would work in Libby's favor during the trial. He may have looked at it because Libby's attorney contacted Fitzgerald's office and said, "Look again." I doubt that Fitzgerald would have changed it simply to avoid political pressure if he could quote Libby's statements on the record to justify the language he used.

Personally, I don't think this particular change makes any difference for * or Cheney. I think that if the filing had been in accordance with Libby's testimony, it would be good for Libby. After all, he was wrong, and obviously remembered an easily established fact incorrectly (or misrepresented it); at some point a mispresentation needs more evidence than itself to show perjury, and a spatter of incorrect facts can go towards establishing faulty memory. But in this case, if the Fitzgerald update is in accordance with the transcript of Libby's testimony, this doesn't help Libby's case, but also may not hurt it.

[Richard Steele]

31. The headline is a LIE, there is no "retreat".

Fitz's correction just PLURALIZED a point which had originally been SINGULAR.

Very deliberately misleading article.