Investigators To Probe Cover Story Of LIBBY's Effort To Shield CHENEY (Murray Waas)

[kpete]

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney.

ADMINISTRATION
The Libby-Cheney Connection
Libby Testimony Raises More Questions About Cheney's Role In The CIA Leak Case
By Murray Waas, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, Feb. 19, 2007


Yet, according to Libby's own grand jury testimony, which was made public during his trial in federal court, Cheney did nothing to discourage Libby from telling that story to the FBI and the federal grand jury. Moreover, Cheney encouraged then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan to publicly defend Libby, according to other testimony and evidence made public during Libby's trial.

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney. They want to know whether Cheney might have known about the leaks ahead of time or had even encouraged Libby to provide information to reporters about Plame's CIA status, the same sources said.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and defense attorneys for Libby are expected to begin their closing arguments in the case as early as Tuesday morning. Defense attorneys for Libby had said for months that they were going to call Cheney as a defense witness, but informed Federal District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who has presided over the Libby trial, at the last minute that they were not going to call him after all.

Had Cheney testified, he would have been questioned about whether he encouraged, or had knowledge of, the leaking of Plame's CIA status. Sources close to the case say that Cheney would have also been sharply questioned as to why, when presented by Libby with what prosecutors regarded as a cover story to explain away Libby's role in the leak, Cheney did nothing to discourage him.

more at:
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/021907nj1.htm

[calimary]

1. Oh, PLEASE, God!!!

BTW - TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers - available here (freshly reconfirmed as current and operational):

Posted in General Discussion forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x250991


Also posted in General Discussion-Politics forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3123083

[rodeodance]

2. who are the 'investigators'??????

[rodeodance]

3. REC. yet too many Ifs, likely ect in this story.

[rodeodance]

4. and thus only the two of them know what was said,........

Dan Richman, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and a professor at Fordham Law School, said the significance of Cheney's reaction to Libby's version of events depends on exactly what Libby told him and what Cheney knew at the time. "Only Cheney and Libby know the import of their conversation, and as is often the case, each could have even come away with a different impression of what was meant" by what the other said.

"If Cheney was merely showing surprise and interest at what Libby indicating to him he was going to tell investigators, then the vice president is innocent in the exchange," Richman said. "But if he had reason to believe, or personal knowledge, that what Libby was planning to say was untrue then there is good reason to view Cheney's conduct in an entirely different light -- an obstruction interpretation."

Because nobody else was present during the discussion between the two men, and thus only the two of them know what was said, it is difficult to interpret the intent of either man, most particularly Cheney, Richman said. "One of the challenges for prosecutors, jurors, and historians is trying to recapture the signals incorporated in gestures and words between two close associates," Richman said.

Attorneys for Libby say he is innocent of all of he charges and that anything he told the FBI and the federal grand jury was either true or represented his best recollection. A spokesperson for Cheney declined comment because the issues raised in this article are currently "a matter before the courts."