Tangled Webs (41 page)
Authors: James B. Stewart
Tags: #History, #United States, #General, #Law, #Ethics & Professional Responsibility
“And I’d say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.
“When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.
“When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.
“And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.
“Any notion that anyone might have that there’s a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.
“If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it’s a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.”
L
ibby resigned his White House posts immediately. Through his lawyer, Joseph Tate, he said, “I am confident that at the end of this process, I will be completely and totally exonerated.” He moved swiftly to expand his defense team, hiring prominent criminal defense lawyers Ted Wells and William Jeffress. President Bush and Vice President Cheney both praised Libby’s public service, expressed sadness over his resignation, and cited the presumption of innocence to which he was entitled. Cheney called Libby “one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known.”
ibby resigned his White House posts immediately. Through his lawyer, Joseph Tate, he said, “I am confident that at the end of this process, I will be completely and totally exonerated.” He moved swiftly to expand his defense team, hiring prominent criminal defense lawyers Ted Wells and William Jeffress. President Bush and Vice President Cheney both praised Libby’s public service, expressed sadness over his resignation, and cited the presumption of innocence to which he was entitled. Cheney called Libby “one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known.”
Libby was formally arraigned on November 3. He appeared in court on crutches due to a foot injury, and entered a plea of not guilty.
Several prominent Republicans helped organize a defense fund, the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust, to raise $5 million. Members of the steering committee included Senators Fred Thompson of Tennessee (who played a prosecutor on
Law & Order
), Alan Simpson of Wyoming, and Spencer Abraham of Michigan, along with former presidential candidates Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes.
Law & Order
), Alan Simpson of Wyoming, and Spencer Abraham of Michigan, along with former presidential candidates Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes.
Democratic senator Ted Kennedy, a fervent critic of the war, issued a statement:
Today is an ominous day for the country, signifying a new low since Watergate in terms of openness and honesty in our government. This is far more than an indictment of an individual. In effect it’s an indictment of the vicious and devious tactics used by the administration to justify a war we never should have fought. It’s an indictment of the lengths administration officials were willing to go to cover up their failed intelligence, their distortion on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and their serious blunders on the war. It is an indictment of their vindictive efforts to discredit anyone who challenge their misrepresentations.
By contrast, on
Meet the Press
the Sunday before the indictment was announced, Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison waved off perjury charges as a “technicality” and struck a refrain that quickly became a rallying cry for Libby’s defenders:
Meet the Press
the Sunday before the indictment was announced, Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison waved off perjury charges as a “technicality” and struck a refrain that quickly became a rallying cry for Libby’s defenders:
“I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.”
“But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate,” Tim Russert countered.
Hutchison responded, “Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I’m not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process–and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.”
Considering the passions that the case had already unleashed, the media was restrained in its reactions, perhaps because the central mystery–Novak’s sources–remained publicly unsolved. Nor, as Fitzgerald had emphasized, did the charges have any bearing on the merits of the war in Iraq, although, if true, the charges portrayed at least one high-level official who showed no reluctance to lie under oath. As Fitzgerald had anticipated, the failure to charge Libby with the original crime being investigated–leaking the identity of a covert agent–led some to dismiss the perjury and obstruction charges as “technicalities.” The
Wall Street Journal
editorial page–for which Libby and his mentor Paul Wolfowitz had been sources, Libby told the grand jury–was predictably skeptical, while conceding that the charges were a “serious matter”:
Wall Street Journal
editorial page–for which Libby and his mentor Paul Wolfowitz had been sources, Libby told the grand jury–was predictably skeptical, while conceding that the charges were a “serious matter”:
Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
The
New York Times
, finally confronted with the reason why Miller’s testimony was indispensable to the grand jury, was more muted in its support for her, defending its decision to support a reporter in jail, but no longer praising her defiance of a court order:
New York Times
, finally confronted with the reason why Miller’s testimony was indispensable to the grand jury, was more muted in its support for her, defending its decision to support a reporter in jail, but no longer praising her defiance of a court order:
Recently,
Times
executives have expressed regrets about some of the ways her case was handled. Reflecting on these events, we have no reservations about the obligation of this paper to stand behind our reporter while she was in jail. We also think Ms. Miller was right on the central point, that the original blanket White House waiver was coerced.
Like the
Journal
, the
Times
conceded that the charges “are very serious,” and noted that
Journal
, the
Times
conceded that the charges “are very serious,” and noted that
the Republicans’ attempts to belittle the charges are quite a switch, considering that many of these same politicians gleefully helped to impeach President Bill Clinton on similar charges in a much less serious context.
The
Washington Post
warned,
Washington Post
warned,
To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest.That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities . . . No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire’s face.
A
few days later, Eckenrode was recuperating from minor surgery and checked his phone messages. Among them was the distinctive voice of Richard Armitage asking Eckenrode to call him. He sounded worried, and said it was “quite important.” When Eckenrode returned the call, Armitage said, “There’s been a development,” and asked to meet with him in person. He didn’t want to say more on the phone.
few days later, Eckenrode was recuperating from minor surgery and checked his phone messages. Among them was the distinctive voice of Richard Armitage asking Eckenrode to call him. He sounded worried, and said it was “quite important.” When Eckenrode returned the call, Armitage said, “There’s been a development,” and asked to meet with him in person. He didn’t want to say more on the phone.
Armitage had left the State Department in November 2004, over a year after disclosing his role in the Novak leak, at the same time Colin Powell resigned as secretary of state. Eckenrode and Fitzgerald met him at his office in Arlington, Virginia, where he now ran a private consulting firm, Armitage International. He looked nervous and uncomfortable, more than at their earlier meetings.
Armitage said that after the press conference announcing Libby’s indictment, he’d received a voice mail from Bob Woodward, for whom Armitage had been a regular and reliable source. According to Armitage, Woodward told him, “I was watching the press conference about Libby. It strikes me, Dick, that everyone–Fitzgerald, the whole country–now thinks that Miller was the first reporter who was told about Plame. I always imagined you a truth teller. I have to remind you, if you don’t remember, that you and I had that same conversation.”
Armitage said the call had come as a “jolt,” a reminder that he had indeed discussed Plame’s status as a CIA agent while Woodward was interviewing him on June 13 for his subsequent book,
Plan of Attack.
“I fucked up again,” Armitage told them. “Do you believe it?” He apologized for not mentioning it before, but said he had no memory of the conversation until Woodward called.
Plan of Attack.
“I fucked up again,” Armitage told them. “Do you believe it?” He apologized for not mentioning it before, but said he had no memory of the conversation until Woodward called.
Fitzgerald had deliberately and carefully not gone on a fishing expedition with the press, seeking testimony only from reporters known to have talked to Libby, Rove, and Armitage, the known sources of leaks. Still, it was startling at this stage of the investigation to discover yet another leak. How many more might there be, conveniently forgotten by sources? He warned Armitage that he’d have to present this new evidence to the grand jury, and reconsider his decision not to seek an indictment against him.
“This is the last straw” with respect to Armitage, Eckenrode argued to Fitzgerald. He’d read a classified report that mentioned Wilson’s wife, leaked her identity to two prominent reporters, one of whom he’d claimed to have forgotten.
Obviously the investigators had to talk to Woodward. Eckenrode placed a series of calls and left messages, but none were returned. Finally Fitzgerald heard from Woodward’s lawyer, Howard Shapiro, at the firm WilmerHale. Much like Russert, Woodward agreed to a deposition, but not an appearance before the grand jury. Questions were confined to discussions about Plame with three sources who’d given Woodward waivers to discuss their otherwise not-for-attribution interviews: Armitage, Libby, and chief of staff Andrew Card. (Armitage, however, insisted that Woodward not reveal his identity outside the deposition; his identity as Novak’s source and now Woodward’s was still a closely guarded secret.) Placed in virtually the same position as Miller and Cooper, Woodward–the nation’s foremost investigative reporter–and his lawyers, by agreeing to testify, sidestepped entirely the constitutional standoff that had resulted in Miller’s going to prison.
When Fitzgerald and Eckenrode met Woodward at WilmerHale’s offices on November 14, Woodward apologized for failing to return Eckenrode’s calls. “That’s a shame, because I was looking forward to meeting you in an underground parking garage,” Eckenrode quipped.
Four days before Libby’s indictment was announced, Woodward had been at the White House for an interview and bumped into Rove in the West Wing. Rove brought up the leak investigation, and referred to Novak’s original source as the “alpha source.” To Woodward, a navy veteran, “alpha” meant the letter
A
–Armitage’s initial–and he assumed that was whom Rove was talking about. “You’ve got that right,” Woodward said. Rove looked mystified. “Armitage,” Woodward clarified. Armitage was Novak’s initial source.
A
–Armitage’s initial–and he assumed that was whom Rove was talking about. “You’ve got that right,” Woodward said. Rove looked mystified. “Armitage,” Woodward clarified. Armitage was Novak’s initial source.
Rove’s face lit up. “Armitage?” Rove stood up and cupped his hands like he was about to throw a football and spun around. “You’ve turned my world upside down!” he exclaimed. He hadn’t guessed Novak’s source, and was obviously thrilled that it was someone in the State Department–anyone but him.
Woodward told Fitzgerald and Eckenrode he’d called Armitage on Monday, October 31, after hearing Fitzgerald’s press conference because he realized “this isn’t right” and thought he had a duty to “set the record straight” and correct the impression that Miller was the recipient of the first leak. Woodward also thought he might persuade Armitage to go public, allowing him to break the news that Armitage was the still unidentified primary source for Novak’s column. Armitage expressed surprise–not that he’d leaked Plame’s identity to Woodward but at the timing. He said he thought the interview had been in July, after Novak’s column. Woodward said it had been June 13. “I’m going to the prosecutor,” Armitage responded. “I have to tell the truth.” He told Woodward he could describe their interview to Fitzgerald but not write anything for publication.
Woodward had taped the June 13 interview, as he did most interviews. His lawyers handed over the relevant portion, which lasted about one minute, in which Armitage discussed Wilson’s wife. It was a stroke of good luck–the investigators’ first direct evidence of a leak, since Novak hadn’t even taken notes. It was a remarkable exchange:
“What’s Scowcroft up to?” Woodward asked.
“Scowcroft is looking into the yellowcake thing.”
“Oh yeah? . . . What happened there?”
“They’re back together,” Armitage replied. “They knew with yellowcake, the CIA is not going to be hurt by this one–”
Other books
An Act of Love by Brooke Hastings
Spy Princess by Shrabani Basu
Fixing Perfect by Therese M. Travis
Smoke and Mirrors by Neil Gaiman
Cat Out of Hell by Lynne Truss
Viking's Prize by Tanya Anne Crosby
3013: MATED (3013: The Series) by Roma, Laurie
Weavers (The Frost Chronicles) by Ellison, Kate Avery
Empire of the Ants by Bernard Werber
Pediatric Examination and Board Review by Robert Daum, Jason Canel