Friday, October 28, 2005
indictment that doesn't make sense to me is #26, Page 9, where it alleges that between October 14 and November 26, 2003 Libby made false statements to the FBI while in the presence of his counsel.
How would Tate (I presume that Tate was his attorney at the time) have allowed this to happen? Correct me if I'm wrong, but an attorney who is aware that his client is lying under oath has to do something, and continuing to attend inquiries with the FBI while his client continues to lie doesn't seem what a lawyer of Tate's stature and experience would do.
Is it possible that Tate wouldn't have asked Libby to explain to him what Libby had done, who he had done it with and when it had done it? I know some criminal attorneys claim to not really want to know whether their client is guilty, but I don't know that their reasons would apply in this case. Tate was trying to keep Libby from getting in trouble, not merely representing him after being charged, and I'd sure want to know as much as I could about what had happened.
Could Libby have been lying to his own counsel about what Libby told to Cooper and Russert and what Libby claims not to have discussed with Miller? But how could this be the case if Tate was reviewing material Libby was producing... he would have seen for himself Libby's notes referencing when and how he learned of Plame's identity.
Or was Libby telling the investigators the truth? Fitzgerald doesn't seem to think so, but he's a prosecutor. He's paid to assume the worst about people.
As I said, something doesn't make sense...