Murray Waas has a new
National Journal article which indicates that Fitz' focus is on discrepancies between accounts Miller and Libby provided to the grand jury.
As previously reported, Libby did not disclose to the GJ his June, 2003 meeting with Miller, and also asserted that he did not, in his July, 2003 meeting with Miller, tell Miller either Plame's name or that she worked for the CIA.
Judy's testimony contradicted him on both points. But the SP seems focused on the extent to which Libby and his attorneys attempted to influence Miller's testimony.
Can we add witness intimidation and obstruction to the list of potential charges for Libby?
The prosecutors and the federal grand jury are also scrutinizing whether Libby, or his attorney, tried to discourage Miller from giving testimony to the grand jury, or tried to improperly influence what Miller would say if she testified, according to the same sources.
Evidence indicating that Libby or his attorney may have tried to discourage or influence Miller's testimony is significant for two reasons, outside legal experts say. First, attempting to influence a witness's testimony might in and of itself constitute obstruction of justice or witness-tampering, said the experts.
More important, evidence that Libby might have tried to discourage Miller's testimony has put Libby's testimony in a worse light, according to government officials briefed on the matter. Potentially misleading and incomplete answers by Libby to federal investigators are less likely to be explained away as the result of his faulty memory or inadvertent mistakes, the sources said.
According to a Justice Department official not directly involved with the Plame case, "Both intent and frame of mind are often essential to bringing the type of charges Fitzgerald is apparently considering. And not wanting a key witness to testify goes straight to showing that there were indeed bad intentions."
So, Miller's testimony not only makes it more difficult for Libby to avoid whatever charges Fitz can apply for the leak, he and his attorneys may have made a case for obstruction. Not so smart.
Interestingly, Waas indicates that Fitzgerald didn't know what Judy would testify to until she took the stand. I believe he needed Miller's testimony, along with all the other reporters, to prove that Rove and Libby's assertions that they'd heard about Plame from reporters was untrue. And I wonder, how did Karl make things better for himself by going in for a fourth appearance after Judy testified.
Given Judy's testimony and her inability to "recall" where she had heard the name "Flame", I wonder if she tried to heed Libby's none-too-subtle hints and tailor her testimony to do the least damage to Libby. Did she trip herself into having to reveal the June 23 conversation with Libby?
Check out War and Piece, where Waas' article first appeared (to me) and for a few tidbits for those of us who are um, eager to learn more.