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.
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.
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:
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: