Libbys Responses Before Grand Jury Fail to Track to Questions

One thing to notice is how closely responses track to a question, and how closely the witness is focusing on the core issues.

Testimony before the Grand Jury shows Libby's responses aren't tracking to the questions.

6 of 20 at line 19: He's asked about one thing, but he's responding to something else.

The point of this question is to notice, not what is being asked, but what Libby responds to.

Notice this question: It has two questions in it:

So when you say, that after we learned that his wife worked at the agency, that became a question. Isn't it fair to say that you already knew it from June 12th or earlier?

The first issue is what question they were focusing on.

The second issue is the timing that the discussion point occurred.

* * *

The key is to notice what Libby focuses on. He has to choose: Does he focus on the issue of the question; or does he focus on the timing of that discussion.

Libby doesn't respond to either, but claims a recollection issue.

* * *

You can learn alot by focusing on what they focus on, how well their responses track to the question, and what they choose to assert recollection problems with.

* * *

7 of 20, line 11: Note Libby is mixing things up: Not clear whether he's talking about a Novak conversation, or an article.

How many (non written) conversations did Libby have with Novak?

Why is Libby stumbling on whether the interchange is in writing or through his ears/in person?

* * *

11 of 20, line 24: Why is Fitzgerald making an error, confusing the Vice President and President?

This suggests that Bush is on Fitzgerald's mind, and this is not isolated to Libby, Rove, or Cheney. If this was exclusively Cheney, Fitzgerald would only think to say, "Vice President."

* * *

15 of 20, line 7 does not appear to be a credible assertion of "non recollection."

The question is merely: Has Libby ever noticed Cheney carrying typed-versions of news -- answer: Yes or no.

Here's the problem: Libby's already stated that he's seen the Vice President's newspapers on his desk. Libby should know whether the Vice President's comments are or are not on typed papers, or just originals.

Point: Libby could be indicted by the Grand Jury for asserting a false assertion of "non recollection", when it appears by previous sworn testimony he had noticed either way.

Notice at 16 of 25, line 25, Libby reverses himself: He states that he does recall -- over a period of time that is "long" -- that he does remember something.

The issue is: Why would Libby not want to talk about something he appears to be able to know: That perhaps there are typed reports the Vice President uses.

Who is the source of those typed reports

What is the relationship to the e-mail

Could there be e-mail that Libby has noticed, but has not been provided

Are there types reports or other activities -- related to monitoring the news -- that Fitzgerald has not been provided, despite the subpoena saying "All notes"?

Are there agency reports, perhaps from the NSA or CIA, that are typed and summaries of foreign news, which Libby is aware, but does not want to discuss because they were not provided to Fitzgerald?

* * *

The issue is: Who is the one that provides these columns to the Vice President? Is it Libby, or someone else that Fitzgerald should be talking to:

A. How are articles clipped

B. Who decides which articles may be of interest

C. If the Vice President does this clipping, why are there not stacks of newspapers

D. Has anyone ever seen the Vice President cut himself with the pen knife?

E. Why doesn't Cheney delegate this administrative task to someone else?

F. Why is something as ordinary as "reviewing the newspaper" something that could be delegated?

G. Does the V-P not use any automated method to gather news, or get inputs from others, or use e-mail to receive electronic summaries of news?

H. What kind of electronic-surfing habits do those -- who may also have heard these discussion -- have; where are these people; where are the records of their internet surfing; why aren't their website visits being tracked by the NSA using the NARUS STA 6400, as are Americans?

* * *

20 of 20, line 9 suggests that the concern is that Cheney, if he's manually going through newspapers, could not be expected to think of all these things.

Rather, it's more likely that Cheney had other discussions, then got the article, and wrote a summary of the concerns on the article.

The issue: Who else was involved; and have they been shared with the Grand Jury.

It looks as though there is electronic message traffic that is classified, which the Vice President has read, and then used an open source article to discuss the points raised in these other communications, which the Grand Jury has not been aware.

Bluntly: The question is whether these electronic communications are NSA intercepts of the domestic American discussions on the fallout of the Iraq WMD issue, and then Cheney used the NYT article as a means to discuss the classified content the NSA had intercepted.

* * *

Consider the length of the responses in Libby's final answers on page 20: Notice his comments are very fluid, he's talking in complete sentences.

This is at odds with the previous testimony with emphatic assertions of "don't recall," even when the question was about something that should have been clear.

The pint is that the earlier emphatic assertions of "don’t recall" don't appear to be related to the events; but related to the specifics and other peripheral issues Libby doesn't want to get into:

A. Are there NSA intercepts the Vice President reads that Libby is aware, and come across in electronic format?

B. Why go to the trouble of transcribing summary discussions on a single news article; when the fastest way would be to simply produce the notes from that other discussion or conversation?

C. Which range of notes and discussion points has Cheney marked on -- other than what has already been provided -- related to the information on what the Public was discussing about Iraq?

D. Who inside the NSA and CIA, after Cheney visited them, can discuss the points of what was or wasn't said -- and contrast them with the concerns raised in these summary conversations just before the NYT note taking: Are there summary points which Cheney has commented on that were actually raised by CIA or other Cheney confidants inside NSA; what is the relationship of the Senior Executive Service inside NSA to Cheney; which specific personnel inside NSA were raising these points; where did they get confirmation that these were new issues; have those personnel been promoted, fired, or replaced; is one of those people General Hayden?

E. Does Cheney know of NSA summary reports related to domestic monitoring which Hayden and the Vice president discussed; how were these summary NSA report complied; which contractor working for the NSA originally collected this information; how was the raw data collected from the telephone and open media in the US, funned through the NSA contractor, to Hayden, then discussed with the Vice President?

F. Can the Vice President share his knowledge of the intelligence reports from the NYPD, who has a commander who previously worked for the CIA; how do these NYPD intelligence report funneled through JTTF and NSA track with the points Cheney was discussing with Hayden, jut prior to making the summary comments on the NYT article?

G. To what extent are the comments on the NYT article merely summary points related to a larger pattern of targeting against opposition in NYC against the President, which Cheney knew well NYPD was doing in the wake of the Iraq war?

H. What is the relationship between the individuals who produced these summary points for the Vice President, and the Potomac Golf Association; are they members; and what access do they have of the Intel-Link system; are they familiar who placed the explosives inside the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7?