-->
ThoughtsOnline

Sunday, October 30, 2005


To follow up on my post about how I don't understand why Libby would give a waiver to the reporters he talked to if he didn't think they would back up his story... or perhaps, in light of Libby's "I forgot" defense, if he knew they would contradict him, Matt Cooper reveals that he contacted Libby on August 5, 2004 to ask Libby for the waiver.... which is the better part of a year after the FBI visited Libby (Page 9, #26b).

So, according to Fitzgerald, Libby lies to the FBI between the dates of October 14 and November 26, 2003 about his discussions with Matt Cooper... then gives Cooper a waiver so Cooper can go tell Fitzgerald and the grand jury that Libby was lying? It doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, Libby's attorney sat in on these sessions with the FBI. According to Cooper's article, when Cooper asked Libby for the waiver, Libby told Cooper that their respective lawyers needed to work things out. Again, if Fitzgerald's story line holds up, Libby tells Tate that it's ok with Libby if they give Cooper a waiver so Cooper can testify about the conversations that Libby told the FBI about during those 2003 interviews and Tate doesn't say, "Hey, Scooter, before we do this, you're sure that Cooper is going to back you up? There's no chance he's going to say something that contradicts what you've told the FBI, is there?" At no time does Tate advise his client (who's an attorney himself) that it's normally not a good idea to encourage someone to testify if the testimony is likely/probably going to contradict what the client told the FBI and testified to in front of the grand jury?

It doesn't make sense to me... and I'm puzzled by Libby's supposedly being willing to plead guilty...