USA TODAY International Edition
Questions and answers about Libby’s indictment
Key legal questions stemming from the indictment of I. Lewis “ Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff:
Q: What happens now?
A:
Libbyso on will be arraigned in court and likelyw ill be freed on bail to await trial.
Q: Is a trial certain?
A: No. The case could end with a guilty plea by Libby in return for some consideration, such as having some of the charges lessened or dropped. Most federal prosecutions end in plea deals.
Q: Whywould Libbywant to plead guilty?
A: To spare himself, and perhaps colleagues, from the exposure of a public trial. A plea also would reduce Libby’s chances of having to serve a long prison sentence. For now, he could get up to 30 years in prison and be = ned $ 1.25 million if convicted on all = ve of the charges that accuse him of lying to a grand jury. One question Libbyw as asked before the grand jurys uggested special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald believed that Libby might have tried to cover up Cheney’s actions at the time CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name was leaked by claiming that reporters, not Cheney, had told him about her.
Q: Would Fitzgerald accept a plea bargain?
A: Juries are unpredictable and perjury can be tough to prove. A plea bargain would assure Fitzgerald of a conviction and in K uence over anys entence for Libby. It also could allow Fitzgerald to bring more charges if Libby agreed to testify against others.
Q: Will charged?
A:
Fitzgerald said more charges are possible. One tantalizing hint from the indictment: a “senior White House of = cial,” identi = ed only as “Of = cial A,” told Libby in mid- July 2003 that he had discussed Plame’s CIA employment with columnist Robert Novak and that Novak planned to write about it. It was Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, that identi = ed Plame as a CIA operative and led to the leak probe. anyone else be
Q: Is “ Of cial A” presidential adviser Karl Rove?
A: The indictment doesn’t say; neither will Fitzgerald. Rove remains under investigation.
Q: How is Libby likely to defend himself?
A: Confusion, misunderstanding and lack of criminal intent often are defenses to perjury charges. Libby’s attorney suggested this is being explored by saying his client was an overworked public servant who was betrayed by a poor memory.
Q: The case against Libby is based on what he said he told reporters such as Meet the Press’ Tim Russert and what the reporters told investigators and the grand jury. Isn’t this just the reporters’ word against Libby’s?
A:
According to the indictment, Fitzgerald has more evidence than that. He has testimony indicating that Libby discussed Plame’s employment at the CIA with at least seven administration of = cials, including Cheney, before Libby’s key conversations with Russert, Time reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times
reporter Judith Miller. This contradicts Libby’s version of those conversations.
Q: So why wasn’t Libby charged with revealing Plame’s identity as an undercover agent? Isn’t that the more serious crime?
A: To do that, Fitzgerald would need to prove that L ibby knew that Plame was a covert agent and that making the information public was a crime. Grand jury testimony in Libby’s indictment suggests he told investigators and grand jurors he did not understand that Plame’s work statuswas classi = ed.
Q: If that’s true, then why did Libby insist to investigators and the grand jury that reporters had told him about Plame, and not just say it was something he knew?
A: Apparently, that struck the grand jurors as suspicious, because they asked L ibby that question. His answer — “ I didn’t know it was true and I wanted them to understand that” — was part of what got him indicted. Sources: United States v. I. Lewis Libby; Louisiana State University law professor Stuart Green; U.S. Attorneys’ Manual