Analysis: Kaiser on Libby Indictment, Resignation

Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Associate Editor
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:00 PM



Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Friday, Oct. 28, at 3 p.m. ET to answer questions and provide instant analysis following the grand jury's indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury, and his subsequent resignation as Vice President Cheney 's chief of staff.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Robert G. Kaiser: Hello to all. This is a fascinating day at the end of a fascinating week--and a mighty bad week for the Bush administration. I'll answer as many questions, and post as many comments, as I can in the next hour or so.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: How impressive is Mr Fitzgerald?! Did Rove, Libby et al start out as honorable and forthright as he seems to be and only become corrupted while in Washington, or are they and he just cut from different cloth? Why can't we recruit guys like him for the Supreme Court?

Robert G. Kaiser: Fitzgerald struck me in this first time I ever saw him perform in public rather like the John Roberts of prosecutors. Did he remind anyone other than me of Kevin Costner in The Untouchables? Sort of a classic Hollywood/comic book cop/prosecutor. He sure made a good impression on me.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Two questions:

First, Fitzgerald seems to suggest the reason he did not indict Libby or anyone else for leaking classified information is because he could not prove their motives for doing so. Is that a requirement? It would seem to me that simply knowing something is classified, as Fitzgerald alleges Libby did regarding Plame's employment, and then discussing it with those who don't have security clearances would constitute a crime.

Second, can you please explain what Fitzgerald means when he says his investigation is ongoing but the current grand jury's term has expired? Might we see more indictments of Libby or anyone else in the coming days, weeks, or months?

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for two helpful questions.

Your first one is especially important. I have dozens of questions already from people who misunderstand the law about disclosing the identity of a secret CIA agent. Let me try to state it in layman's terms, clearly:

The law forbids the disclosure of the identity of a covert, or undercover, CIA agent IF (and ONLY if) the discloser 1)knows that this information is classified, or officially secret and 2) willfully discloses it nevertheless. This is why "motive" is important. We have no evidence, none at all, that ANYONE in the Bush White House, from Cheney to Rove to Libby and beyond, both knew that Valerie Wilson was a former undercover operative and willfully broke the law by disclosing that fact to a reporter. Today's indictment suggests, but does not yet confirm, that Fitzgerald also had no evidence of such a crime.

As to your second, Fitzgerald made it very clear that the investigation is not over. If he needs the support of a grand jury, he can take future matters before a different one. There are always grand juries sitting in federal court in Washington, all year round.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Mr. Kaiser:

Thank you for taking questions. Is there anything to take away from Mr. Fitzgerald's press conference that Karl Rove is, or is not, out of the woods yet?

Robert G. Kaiser: Not out of the woods yet, as my colleagues reported earlier on washingtonpost.com. Fitzgerald doesn't confirm that today, but his assertion that the case is not yet closed makes it clear to me.

_______________________

Beltway insider: Is there a likelihood that the prosecutor indicted Libby (the small fry) first to pressure him to cut a deal and give up Rove or the Vice President? If so, do you think Libby will do so, or is he willing to fall on his sword to protect Rove, Cheney, and ultimately the administration?

Robert G. Kaiser: I have no reason to believe this.

_______________________

Los Angeles, CA: One big question I have:

What are the chances this scandal/investigation is going to further implicate Cheney?

Are we supposed to believe he had nothing to do with this even though is COS is indicted?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think it is fair to say that according to Fitzgerald, Cheney was involved in informing Libby of the fact that Mrs. Wilson helped send Mr. Wilson to Niger. Apparently, Cheney was Libby's first source. But these two men have all the security clearances they could possibly have; no rule or law was violated when Cheney told Libby about her.

An obvious question is, did the Vice President participate in an organized effort to undermine Wilson by revealing his wife's identity and job? But we have no new information today on that. Fitzgerald has not told us if he found evidence of such an effort. And it's important to remember that even if there was, it could have been perfectly legal. A White House trying to undermine its critics is not a jailable offense. The law would be involved if, see above, someone in the White House knew Ms. Wilson was a secret agent, knew this information was classified, and willfully disclosed it nevertheless.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You just wrote that Fitzgerald could always go before another grand jury. But doesn't that involve a lot of work to get a new grand jury up to speed with all the facts of the ongoing case? Can't he just ask the existing grand jury to sit a little longer?

Robert G. Kaiser: I think the current grand jury cannot be extended, under the law. I don't think it is all that difficult to brief a new grand jury on the case. They don't have to master the whole thing, only a particular matter on which Fitzgerald might want it to take action.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Kaiser, you continue to publish columns by Robert Novak in The Washington Post. This man has lost all credibility with me. I am sure that many feel the same, yet you continue to publish his work. Is he not your Judith Miller? Has he not damaged the reputation of The Post?

Thanks.

Robert G. Kaiser: The Post's editorial page publishes Novak, and has for many years. We in the news department have no influence on the editorial page, just as they have no influence on us--a high wall separates us. So I cannot answer your question, sorry. (Geez, I sound like Fitzgerald! But it's the truth.)

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Robert: I sense the beginning of a tidal wave of GOP/right wing spin on this news -- trying to make it seem like a victory for the president that Rove was not indicted.

Surely this cannot be seen as anything but bad news for Bush -- or am I wrong?

Robert G. Kaiser: You are right. Bush is having a terrible autumn. Nothing is going well for him that I can see except the John Roberts nomination and the resilient American economy. Iraq is bad; Miers was a fiasco; this is grim and could get grimmer; a less-than-40% approval rating for a sitting president is extremely rare and very ominous; DeLay's and Frist's troubles are more bad news--it just goes on and on.

In my view the Miers episode was a turning point. We are seeing signs of a breakup of the GOP coalition. Bush has, for the first time, volunteered for a major embarrassment, and did so because of pressure from his own base.

The spinners will spin, but the news is bad. Sure it would have been worse, or it will be worse, if Rove were indicted too, not least because Bush would then lose his right arm. That's a comfort, perhaps, for the president, but it's unlikely to make him dance a jig, do you think?

_______________________

Twin Cities, Minn.: Amidst the crisis this administration is facing, I am very concerned how governance will be affected. We are in the midst of a debilitating war, healthcare reforms, pension reforms, immigration policy and many other important policies need careful consideration. This week has been a big disaster for the administration, but if it negatively impacts how we are governed, then its an even bigger disaster for all Americans. As a seasoned journalist, what are your thoughts on this?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I agree with you. Washington is totally distracted. Congress is divided and its ability to agree on anything, even a budget and spending program for the coming fiscal year, is far from clear. Governance has suffered already, and it will surely suffer further.

_______________________

Amherst, Mass.: What do you make of the fact that numerous officials are identified in the indictment by their official positions (e.g. "Under Secretary of State), but "Official A" is treated differently?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question, and I can't answer it authoritatively. I recall, but am not certain of this, that we have earlier reported that Libby and Karl Rove had a conversation of the kind described in the indictment that occurred between Libby and "Official A." I am trying to get Walter Pincus to clear this up for me right now, but he is busy. We know from Matt Cooper of Time that on the date of that conversation, July 14, 2003, he and Rove had a conversation about Plame.

We're trying to clear up which of two undersecretaries of state this could have been, Marc Grossman or John Bolton. (There are other undersecretaries, but they have narrow and specific areas of responsibility which, I believe, disqualify them as potential interlocutors with Libby about the Wilsons. I could be wrong about this.)

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: It would seem to me that if Novack told Fitzgerald or the grand jury who his sources were for Valerie Plame's identity and CIA status, the investigation could have been over long ago. Am I missing something??

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes you are, for reasons mentioned above. My strong hunch is that Novak has told Fitzgerald who his sources were. If he had not, I think it is fair to surmise, we'd have read by now about a subpoena and possible legal action against Novak of the kind Fitzgerald pursued against our colleagues, Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, etc.

_______________________

Augusta, Ga.: Excuse me, sir, but I believe you are wrong about your emphasis on motive, as under the Espionage Act of 1917, though the revelation to reporters might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," it would still be a crime. Motive under this law matters not a whit.

Robert G. Kaiser: I was referring to the early 1980s law on identifying convert agents, not to the 1917 espionage act, which prohibits the disclosure of classified information. Mercifully (this is a journalist speaking!) Fitzgerald has stayed away from that catch-all law, which has never in modern times been used to prosecute an official for a leak to a reporter. Long may that remain the case! In this era of egregiously over-classified government information, using that law in "leak investigations" could lead to a grave consequences for American journalism in my opinion.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Kaiser,

You write that "Cheney was involved in informing Libby of the fact that Mrs. Wilson helped send Mr. Wilson to Niger." But many sources have said that this is not true - that Mrs. Wilson did not help send her husband to Niger - it was others in the CIA who requested he make his trip.

Robert G. Kaiser: You are wrong. Her role is not in dispute.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: How does this affect using unnamed sources for stories in the future for the press?

Robert G. Kaiser: I can't think of any direct effect it would have.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As you have pointed out, the disclosure of Plame's CIA employment by Cheney to Libby was not a crime, yet in essence Libby has been indicted for lying about the source of his knowledge of Plame's employment, i.e. that Cheney told him. Why do government officials continue to get caught in the trap of trying to cover up a matter that probably would blow over if only they are candid at the beginning?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. I urge everyone to read the transcript of Fitzgerald's extraordinary press conference, just completed, which I'm confident washingtonpost.com will post later today. He gives a strong answer to those who would argue that prosecuting Libby as he has constitutes pursuing him on an insignificant or technical violation.

I don't think we know enough to know why Libby might have lied about these matters; he knows what was really going on inside, we do not.

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Robert: Are you surprised only one individual has been indicted? I know there was speculation that someone under the radar might get indicted as well. Do you think it only focuses on Libby and Rove? And do you think the Italian revelations about the Niger forgeries will come to light to the American public because of this, because this really is the crux of the matter. Thanks.

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, this has been a classic example of the way rumor fills a vacuum in situations where no facts are known. After four decades in this business, I almost automatically steel myself against idle speculations when I know I have no facts. What's the point? From the beginning what we did NOT know about the Fitzgerald investigation far outweighed what we did. Only in the last two or three weeks have sources close to those under investigation have begun to leak real information about the direction the inquiry was taking. And based on those leaks, all we knew was that Libby and Rove were in his crosshairs. That's still the case, it would appear. So no, I was not surprised, and you shouldn't be either, unless you have a talkative cousin sitting on that grand jury.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: Mr. Fitzgerald makes much in the indictment that Mr. Libby says that Tim Russert told him of Mr. Wilson's wife's profession. Apparently, Mr. Russert said that he did not tell Mr. Libby about Mr. Wilson's wife. Why would Mr. Fitzgerald take Russert's word over that of Libby?

Robert G. Kaiser: The indictment of Libby lists five separate occasions on which Libby was allegedly informed about, and discussed, Wilson's and his wife's identities. Then he testified to the grand jury that he hadn't known their identities. And, the indictment says, he told Russert and Judy Miller and Cooper that he had learned about their identities from other reporters, a statement for which there is no supporting evidence available to us today.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Throughout this process the White House has been highly respectful of the prosecutor's office. Is there any reason to believe that this commendable attitude will change now that Libby has been indicted?

Robert G. Kaiser: None I know of.

_______________________

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: Thanks for taking questions.

Fitzgerald was asked during the press conference to compare this with Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Monica. He said "I'm gonna take a dive on that one" - it is not his job to speculate. My immediate response to today's events it is very hard to make that comparison because we are not done yet. This looks as much a beginning as an ending of something - your thoughts?

Robert G. Kaiser: I'm with you. There is certainly more to come.

_______________________

Rochester, Minn.: It's highly tempting to draw parallels with the Nixon administration. It "feels" like we're seeing hints of a cover-up in progress but no "smoking gun" as yet. Could you comment on this temptation?

Robert G. Kaiser: Resist it!

_______________________

RE: Espionage act: Even though this information was leaked to a reporter, I think use of the Espionage Act would be appropriate, considering that the information leaked was the identity of a covert agent, and very well could have put that Ms. Plame's life in danger - for as long as she lives, members of other intelligence groups and terrorist groups will know her name and be able to find her more easily should they want to.

Robert G. Kaiser: I disagree, but thanks for posting.

_______________________

Frederick, Maryland: We have hypocrisy bearing down on the American political process and the American public...It's been confirmed that--even if unindicted--key individuals in the Bush administration abused their positions and engaged in matters that are unethical...how is this perceived by the evangelical right? How is this justified by Christians? How does his strongest voting bloc rationalize Karl Rove's incessant lying to prop up Bush? Are the Christian coalitions and the Republican right determining when to practice the morality of their religion?

Robert G. Kaiser: Can't answer these questions, but I can post them.

_______________________

Brooklyn, NY: Who are these members of grand juries sitting around D.C. all year round? Where do they pool these people from? Are they regular folk like regular jury pools? And how many jurors are there?

And if they are just regular folk, does that mean there are people walking around the D.C. who know everything going on at these hearings? And are they allowed to talk about it?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yup, and yup. But as Fitzgerald reminded us repeatedly this afternoon, divulging grand jury secrets is a serious crime that can put the perp in the klink for a long time. Leaks have been rare, surprisingly rare perhaps.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Fitzgerald said he "reads newspapers" and respects the need for anonymous sources. He said though that Judy Miller's case was extraordinary, that the conversation between her and Libby was itself crime, making her one of two witnesses to a crime. So Miller's jail time, undertaken in defense of her source's anonymity, had nothing to do with protecting whistleblowers. Do you think The Post and other papers overdid their defense of Judy's first amendment stand?

Robert G. Kaiser: The Post editorial page's defense of Miller (with which I had no connection whatsoever, like all members of the news staff here) was, I recall, very careful and circumspect. I won't comment on other papers' defenses of her.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I vaguely recall a story reporting that Vice President Cheney first identified the CIA agent to Libby. Do you the V.P. is being investigated, and what do you think his chances are of being indicted, especially after the indictment of his top aid.

Robert G. Kaiser: as suggested above, for Cheney to talk to Libby about Ms. Wilson's identity is in no way a crime. Fitzgerald did interview Cheney early in the investigation; we don't know anything about what transpired between them.

_______________________

Dayton, Ohio: Perhaps, this indictment will teach Republican officials a lesson not to get too cozy with the journalists who are for all intents and purposes their enemies.

Robert G. Kaiser: You know, this is a truly silly comment. At the risk of sounding self-serving and pompous, I will say as forcefully as I know how that honest reporters are not the "enemies" of any public figures other than corrupt or malfeasant ones. The idea that we are sitting in this newsroom with a political mission to undo Republican officials is just nuts. (Did Bill Clinton believe that when The Post broke the Monica Lewinsky story?)

_______________________

Reston, Va.: This is about the 100th time I've heard someone in the media mention how bad Iraq is going. What would it take for you to say its going well? It seems like nothing could do that for the media. We've had a Constitution, more great turnout to ratify it, and now the Sunnis are going to vote in December. What more do you want? Zero deaths? You know, it is a war.

Robert G. Kaiser: Do you read the stories from Iraq? Have you read reviews of George Packer's now book, or the book itself? I take no pleasure in this, but the situation in Iraq is lousy. Most Iraqi cities are insecure. There is less electricity service in Iraq than there was when the "mission" was "accomplished." Drivers routinely wait hours to buy gasoline in Iraq. Factions routinely have armed militias that are used to intimidate and kill members of other factions and ethnic groups. And on and on. It is a war, and there is no end in sight, and Iraqis themselves remain hostile to our occupation in huge numbers, as our own polls of their feelings show.

_______________________

Smithfield, R.I.: Why didn't the prosecutor question the President and Vice President under oath?

Robert G. Kaiser: we don't know.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kaiser, I must ask that you respond in greater detail to the question about whether Valerie Wilson 'sent her husband to Niger,' which you say is a fact not disputed. That's just patently false, sir. There are many variations that have appeared in the press over the past several months ranging from her having been in a meeting where it was discussed, having offered him up as a suggestion, to the (generally rightwing talking point) view that she personally approved his appointment for that trip. Your answer seems simplistic, and almost partisan.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for this. You are right, I misremember ed what I thought I knew. your question drove me to Walter Pincus's desk a few steps from mine, and he reminded me of the actual situation, to wit:

The Senate Intelligence Committee report said that Ms. Wilson had the idea to send her husband to Niger, and persuaded her CIA colleagues to do so. But, Walter says, the CIA itself has always said no, she helped facilitate the idea, but it came from other officials in the agency.

So I misspoke in saying it was established that she"sent" him. She participated in the act of sending him, at least.

I am grateful to you for giving me a chance to correct myself in real time, so to speak.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Even during the press conference reporters tried to get Fitzgerald to talk about whether perjury was really a "technical" crime. Fitz came out and said "That talking point won't fly."

But do you think it will? It sort of did under Clinton, in the sense the public didn't think it was a big crime to lie about sex because they understood (on various levels) the questions were designed to embarrass the President.

Robert G. Kaiser: How the public reacts we will just have to wait and see. There's this important difference, though: When the Lewinsky story broke, Clinton's approval ratings were nearly 60%. After he was impeached, they went over 60%. Many people seem to forget how popular Clinton was, and remained even in the face of the impeachment process. Bush hasn't had an approval rating of 55% in a very long time, I don't think. He is now at 40% or lower in all the polls. This is the context in which we will, in the days ahead, watch public opinion react to this indictment.

Which doesn't mean you may not prove to be correct. You may well. I have no idea what to expect.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: I know you dismissed the Dayton question as "silly," but come on. The media is 85% Democrat. You really don't think those biases creep through? Gimme a break. Go spend time with a group that's 85% R or 85% D and you're going to have completely different world views. As much as the media may try to stay neutral, I suspect a media that is 85% R might spin things differently

Robert G. Kaiser: For the umpteenth time, let me try to explain the difference between your view of reality and reality:

You, I daresay, like Dayton, see the world through an ideological lens. You support your team, and dislike the other team. You see a great struggle going on between R and D, or C and L. You are pretty sure that the people who aren't with you are against you.

I and most of my colleagues are from a different category of humanity. We are NOT ideological. We admire (and dislike) politicians in both parties. We have watched conservatives do well or badly, and liberals do well or badly--in elections, and in governing the country or parts of it. We know -- I don't say we think, I say we know -- that liberals can be crooks, and conservatives can be crooks, and that liberal ideas can work sometimes, and conservative ideas can work sometimes. This comes from years of reporting with eyes open.

That 85% number comes from some survey that (we once tried to find out) no one at The Washington Post participated in. I have forgotten the details. But I can assure you that at least 85% of my colleagues here are, before they are anything else, professional skeptics. Sure, people have views; most of us vote. And most of us do believe in the old saw that a reporter's job is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable, though we do so not by political action, but by writing stories.

Dayton's question was silly, as is yours, because you both presume that we are dishonest in what we do, and incapable of doing it fairly.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Bush having a terrible Autumn? Bush handles everything with aplomb, no matter what the naysayers may say. You can't blame hurricanes on Bush, but I do blame lackluster local officials and then Bush steps up and fires FEMA director and gets the military to handle the job and gives tons of money to rebuild. Job done. Iraq is still dangerous but they people are voting, vote Shiite and Sunni. Job getting done. Roberts is posted to the court while Miers withdrawals because Dems want the client/attorney confidentiality privilege thrown out the window. Bush will appoint another person. Bush and the country march on. The media is left in the dust.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Raleigh NC: "We have no evidence, none at all, that ANYONE in the Bush White House, from Cheney to Rove to Libby and beyond, both knew that Valerie Wilson was a former undercover operative and willfully broke the law by disclosing that fact to a reporter."

Only if the interrogation of Novak was comically inept. SOMEBODY told Novak, and he was under oath. And someone told Novak something that cause him to describe Plame as an "operative" and not an "analyst" or "employee." Frankly, it's insulting to our intelligence for you to try to sell us this crap.

Robert G. Kaiser: Whoa. CIA operative is not the same as clandestine or under-cover CIA officer. For a crime to be committed, we have to know that Plame's identity was leaked by someone who knew she was an undercover agent, knew the CIA was actively trying to conceal her identity, and revealed it anyway. I think we should assume that Fitzgerald knows who Novak's two sources were. I think the fact that he brought no charges under this law means he didn't think he could prove it had been violated. But that is surmise, obviously.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Mr. Kaiser, I'm still trying to understand why the "outing" of Valerie Plame is not considered a crime if Libby told a reporter who didn't have the necessary security clearance that she was a covert agent. Thanks

Robert G. Kaiser: Why do you think Libby KNEW she was a covert agent? We have no evidence of that. And that's the problem.

_______________________

little rock: This administration is looking in one week to be a big "do over". What key people could Bush choose to replace in order to help him get out of this mess? Why does he seem never to look to the other side of the aisle for balance in his appointments? Clinton's pick of Cohen comes to mind.

Robert G. Kaiser: This question provides a good way to end this discussion, which I do out of exhaustion, not because I have exhausted the good questions! You have sent in hundreds. Thank you. I'm sorry I couldn't answer more.

I like this question because it moves us toward the future: where are things headed? Of course I never know the answer to such questions, but I love to think about them. When everything went way south for Ronald Reagan in his second term, after the eruption of Iran-Contra, he swept many senior officials out of his administration. He brought it former Senator Howard Baker as a fresh White House chief of staff, and Baker in turn brought in a whole new team of pragmatic, can-do figures. Reagan turned his attention to Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, and helped negotiate and encourage the end of the cold war. His new team, and Gorbachev, gave him a fresh start, and in the end he righted the ship of state, and the Republican Party. After the 1986 elections, when Democrats made major gains in the House and Senate, it looked like the Republicans were doomed to lose in 1988. But because of Reagan's and Baker's accomplishments over in 1987 and 1988, the next president was Reagan's VP, George H. W. Bush.

Now this President Bush's problems may be harder to deal with than Reagan's were then, but a president remains powerful even when he's way down in popularity. Bush could do something like what Reagan did then, reconstruct his White House and his Cabinet and start afresh. I certainly don't think we can rule out the possibility that he could reverse his fortunes.

But does he have the flexibility and creativity of Ronald Reagan? Can he, implicitly if not explicitly, admit the need for a fresh start with fresh faces? I have no idea.

Thanks again to all participants. See you again here soon, I hope.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2800985_pf.html