Strong case seen that lies were told
WASHINGTON -- The five-count indictment unveiled against I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby yesterday presents a strong case that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff knowingly lied to the FBI and to a grand jury about how he first learned that outed CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the intelligence agency, criminal law professors and former prosecutors said yesterday.
Libby told FBI investigators and testified under oath to the grand jury that he first learned about Wilson from a reporter on July 10, 2003, and that he merely passed that information along to other reporters as unverified journalistic gossip, the indictment says. But prosecutors list nine prior conversations Libby had about Wilson in the preceding weeks, mostly with other government officials.
''On the simple question of perjury, it sure sounds like a strong case because it's hard to say that you forgot [numerous] separate conversations in which you heard the name," said George Fisher, a criminal law professor at Stanford Law School.
Steven Duke, a Yale Law School criminal law professor, said Libby's defense strategy will probably be to create doubt about whether Libby is blameworthy for having told the FBI and the grand jury that he first learned about Wilson from reporters.
''Basically, the defense is that he really didn't remember [previous conversations about Wilson] when he made the statements, or perhaps that he didn't understand the question that he was answering, or that his answer was misinterpreted," Duke said. ''That's about the range of defenses that appear to me."
Former federal prosecutor Pat Woodward said the weakest part of the government's case is that the indictment, at least, does not mention documents that underpin the charges. He said defense attorneys will try to create doubt about witnesses' recollection of years-old conversations, so prosecutors will have an easier time at trial if they can produce corroborating reporters' notes or e-mails.
But the strongest part of the government's case, he said, seems to be evidence that Libby had many prior conversations about Wilson even though he told investigators that he first learned about Wilson from NBC's Tim Russert. According to the indictment, Libby and Russert never discussed Wilson.
''If the government can show that he affirmatively concocted a story to try to cover his tracks, that, more than anything, will show his attempt to obstruct justice," Woodward said. ''At first blush, that's what strikes me as his biggest problem."
Technically, Libby was charged with three different crimes, all of which stem from the same basic alleged lies: one count of obstruction of justice by impeding an investigation by lying; two counts of making a false statement to FBI agents; and two counts of committing perjury by lying under oath to a grand jury.
By piling on similar charges, legal specialists said, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is following a common prosecutorial practice of citing every statute that is relevant to the facts in order to bolster his case and make it more difficult for Libby to defend himself.
It is also common, the specialists said, for an investigation into one kind of crime -- in this case, the leaking of Wilson's identity -- to result in an indictment alleging a coverup in the course of the investigation. Felonies such as obstruction of justice are often easier to prove, resulting in a criminal conviction. For example, in 2004 the homemaking mogul Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators looking into a questionable stock deal. Similarly, in 2002, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was prosecuted for obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its questionable audit of the
If convicted of every count, Libby theoretically faces a maximum of 30 years in prison. But such a sentence is highly unlikely under federal sentencing guidelines, according to legal specialists. 