Redstate

Libby was convicted of lying in an effort to obstruct justice.

This really isn't about trying to shift focus to Joe Wilson. Its about Scooter getting caught lying in an effort to obstruct justice.

Makes me wonder what "justice" he endeavored to obstruct - we don't know that yet, maybe never will.

If P. Bush pardons Scooter we'll never know. If he doesn't then Libby might get upset enough to clue us all in.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

As far as I can tell, the only justice that has been obstructed is contained in the fact that Joseph Wilson IV (not to mention Sandy Berger) is still walking the Earth as a free man, and receiving movie deals and handsomely paid speaking engagements, while Scooter Libby is facing going to prison. That's it. That's the "justice" that has been "obstructed."

No, thats another effort to redirect attention from the facts. What we know is that Libby lied to the grand jury and thats what he was convicted of. No matter what "team" your on, you can't believe that lying on the stand is OK.

The questions that need to be contemplated:

What was the justice that was obstructed - why did Libby lie?
Why didn't he take the stand? What was the risk?
Why didn't Cheney take the stand in his defense?

he was convicted - only Libby knows whether he actually lied.

As to your questions:
1) You got me. Perhaps it should be Fitzgerald answering that question, though. After all, he's the one who brought charges.
2) Perhaps because he didn't think he needed to.
3) Perhaps because Cheney has about a -3% faborability rating in DC and it's unlikely his appearance before a DC jury would have helped Libby's cause.

Just guessing.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

That means the unanimous jury of his peers who heard the best arguments for and against also came to understand that he lied.

My point is that it would be good if we (the public) could come to know WHY he lied.

And- equally important, why neither he nor Cheney took the stand in defense. Cheney's public approval rating shouldn't have much to do with it.

And obviously they needed to, since Libby was convicted without the additional testimony.

There is a lot about this case we don't know yet...

actually there is no case. The prosecutor was empowered to investigate the "outing" of a covert CIA operative. The prosecutor quickly learned that the CIA operative was NOT covert and that the "outing" was done by Dick Armitage.

Instead of stopping the investigation of a non crime, he put person after person under oath so as to catch someone with a faulty memory in a "lie". He got his scalp, he ruined a man.

Molon Labe!

It was a perjury trap from day one...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

There is a preponderance of evidence that says she was legally covert. And if evidence emerged that Libby lied under oath, it was Fitz's duty to pursue it.

I'm surprised so many here are willing to dismiss perjury and obstruction in a federal case pursued by a bi-partisan. Curious...!

There is a preponderance of evidence that says she was legally covert.

Got any of that acutal "evidence"? I suspect not, otherwise Armitage would have been prosecuted for it.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

There is a preponderance of evidence that says she was legally covert.

Your next comment will provide a cite for this lovely fact, or you'll move along to another thread, having conceded that you have nothing to contribute here that has the remotest basis in fact.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=762144

According to this Newsweek article titled "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still
Covert" by Michael Isikoff and dated Feb. 13, 2006, special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald made a determination on this matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed
done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past
five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her
identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

US Code (USC) TITLE 50, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 426, (4) covers one
definition of being a covert agent.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----...

"The term 'covert agent' means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or
a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an
intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified
information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five
years served outside the United States; ..."

Under the above definition and the assertion by Patrick Fitzgerald, Valerie
Plame, also know as Valerie Wilson, was considered a CIA covert agent when
Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column was published in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR200510...

Fitzgerald's own opinion on anything does not amount to a "preponderance of the evidence," which is a specific factual finding at the end of a civil trial. None of the articles you cite support a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

By the way, Fitz's interpretation of the statute is total crap, as the drafters of the statute have stated.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Again, the definition of covert:

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or
a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an
intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified
information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five
years served outside the United States; ..."

Valarie Plame fits the above definition, therfore...

What am I missing here?

Why isn't Armitage in leg irons tonight?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...that's another issue entirely.

My guess is that Fitzgerald didn't think he could PROVE that Armitage knew Plame was covert. but that's just a guess.

Oh, you mean his own public admission isn't enough?

Weakest. Answer. Ever.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...as it has nothing to do with Plame's status.

People are charged or not charged based on probability of conviction and we'll all have to guess what Fitgerald lacked, but it asn't covert status.

He hasn't much to work with, facts being so pesky.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

"'Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. "

I must assume some of the same issues were in play with Armitage.

Fitz's conclusion was apparently that working "with" people outside the United States was the same as "working outside the United States," as she had not been outside the States (by her own admission, as I recall), since she got spooked by the Aldrich Ames incident.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

...beyond that I don't know what to tell you.

If I concede that it was boarderline enough for more than one person in the case to decide she COULD be covert, don't you belive the administration should have used the most caution possible?

I see that, in the judge's opinion, he makes reference to the fact that Fitzgerald made the finding. As the judge was not the fact finder in this case, it's mostly irrelevant, but if you have a link to the actual opinion, I'd love to read it.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

...but for the purpose of the trial, the judge saw nothing to refute Fitgerald's finding, making it understood evidence in the case.

All this of course has nothing to do with the outcome, of course, but is just a discussion of why this whole thing was important in the first place.

Libby wasn't on trial for "The Outing™", right?

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

...I was just responding to "so what if he lied, Plame wasn't covert".

you can keep trying to say it, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Definition of covert:
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or
a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an
intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified
information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five
years served outside the United States; ..."*

Now the Newsweek article cited above:
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

You can keep saying she WASN'T, but according to the court, who acce[ted Fitzgerald's assesment... Plame was covert.

Serving outside the United States is distinct from working on matters, subjects or targets that are outside the United States. Newsweek is (deliberately) conflating both.

Using Newsweek's novel definition of covert, this means that each and every single person who works in the CIA is a covert agent because the CIA's work is always outside the United States - the CIA cannot legally conduct operations within the United States.

Which just goes to show just how dishonest and twisted this has been from the very beginning.

...and it's likely that none of us are privvy to exactly what it was he was told by the CIA that she was doing/did that constituted "work outside the country". For all we know the whole "I've not been out of the US since the Aldridge Ames" thing is a cover story to disguise what she was actually up to.

Regardless, FITZGERALD is the one who determined her status and the CIA clearly didn't dispute that finding.

You can say that, except that Robert Novak called the CIA to verify her employment and they did it. That kinda doesn't tie up with Fitz's findings.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

She didn't meet the #1 criteria. She hadn't been overseas for over 5 years. In addition, she was married to a State Dept. grunt (CIA coverts are not allowed to do this, for pretty obvious reasons). Her husband listed her in a who's who listing. She drove to work at Langley (only qualifies as covert if you are secret agent Dingledorf). Dozens of reporters knew that she worked for the CIA.

Is there anything left?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

"Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

The argument wasn't considered legitimate the first time. Repeating it and using sources hat quote each other increases your legitimacy how ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If we follow this logic then we have to conclude that Fitzgerald is also either a liar or an incompetent because he "found" that Libby had perjured himself in regards to the conversation with Matt Cooper and a jury disagreed.

Fitzgerald's "findings" aren't, to quote Lanny Davis, "poof" of anything.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

...concerned, because the judge took his findings as fact for the basis of the trial.

And since the jury was hung 10-1 on the Matt Cooper charge the jury's disagreement was SLIGHT to say the least.

has had her opinion that Plame was not a covered agent under the definitions in the act Fitzwater was supposedly prosecuting under. I believe the link was on this very site some months ago, although I have since forgotten her name and don't have the reference handy. All of the sources I've seen indicate that Plame was not sent outside the U.S. for six the years prior to the alleged leak. The law itself specifies that the statute of limitations is five years. Clearly not covered. If there is some sort of covert trip she took, why was her husband writing an article for the flippin NYT that someone could clearly trace back to her? That would clearly endager her covert status. Why if she was covert, was Wilson not under a secrecy agreement for his trip to Niger? Why did the CIA not execute its standard requirement that Wilson clear anything related to his CIA sponosored work with them before being published? Yes, there's something rotten in this case, but it isn't Libby obstructing justice when Fitzwater knew less than two weeks into the case who the leaker was, and that it was no one anywhere near Cheney, Libby, or Bush.

I think the name you are looking for might be Victoria Toensing.
Just to add my two cents. Once upon a time any covert operator knew they were no longer covert the day they were assigned to Langley...
Covert ops folks work for a separate section of the CIA. They NEVER interface with Langley. If they are working at Langley it is because they have been taken off the CO roll. At least that's the way it used to be.
Back then you didn't get to be a virgin again.
It is possible for someone removed from CO to still perform the occasional "covert" job but they won't be covered under the statutes covering the Covert Ops Directorate of the CIA. Many people working for normal CIA go "under cover" for a week or two for special purposes. Maybe you're a "tourist" in Indonesia and meet with a particular source of possible info. Perhaps you'll attend a conference with a pass from some fake think tank just so you can hear a speech and later meet with a dissident Iranian in France...
These things don't make you Valerie Plame 007...

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and was deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. She was instrumental in drafting the language of the original legislation.

Try these links:

Investigate the CIA

What a Load of Armitage!

Trial in Error

Does the Libby Verdict Have Appeal?

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

tell us why on earth he would lie (mis-remember) when there was no crime. Just why does his memory count for more than the poor memories of the journalists that conflicted with his? Do you really want this as a precedent on perjury? Do you not care for the integrity of the process? Are you really that far left? If so, it WILL come back to bite you.

So many questions...don't expect any reasonable answers.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I think you asked the key question - Why DID he lie?

You can claim he didn't lie, or he mis-remembered, but the jury unanimously agreed he led on multiple points and did so in an effort to obstruct justice.

I wasn't there (at the trial) but I tend to trust the jury system in this case. Why don't you?

but I tend to trust the jury system in this case. Why don't you?

Juries get things wrong too.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Under your standards, he said he didn't, they said he did. The jury believed them, so therefore he did.

But I say he told the truth. You say I'm wrong. Therefore I lied. If I was under oath, I'd be guilty of perjury.

I can assure you, if I'm ever called before a grand jury, I won't testify to anything but my name and birthdate.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

The whole thing was about sticking it to the Man.

This should never have been tried in DC. Libby should appeal, if he has any money left.

He should be pardoned and Bush can call it jury nullification
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a straight forward case of entrapment by the prosecutor. The prosecutor knew who leaked Plame's name and continued hunting in places where the leaker wasn't the only possible thing he could be trying to do was entrap an innocent person into committing a crime. Therefore this case needs to be overturned as an example that no matter how high profile the case, and no matter how badly the MSM wants a scalp, a prosecutor cannot engage in entrapment. A pardon won't do that.

1) I believe the prosecutor engaged in unethical conduct in continuing an investigation into a leak from the White House internal staff when he knew only a few weeks into the investigation that the leaker was Armitage. He also engaged in unethical conduct in not following the clear dictates of the statute that Plame was not a covert agent for purposes of the law under which he was prosecuting.

2) Both the prosecutor and the defense attorneys dismissed jurors who had read or knew anything about the case before the trial started. While the willful disregard of the rule of law by judges has had an incredibly corrosive effect on law in this country, I'm still not convinced it is more corrosive than this practice of explictly excluding the people most likely to critically analyze a case.

3) I live just outside the beltway and know DC. The only Repubilicans that can get a fair trial in DC are RINOs, and even then, I'm not sure that really meets the definition of the word "fair."

Thanks for explaining to me what a conviction means. I really needed that.

My point is that it would be good if we (the public) could come to know WHY he lied.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

And- equally important, why neither he nor Cheney took the stand in defense. Cheney's public approval rating shouldn't have much to do with it.

Have you ever been at a trial? I mean a real trial, not the ones they show on CourtTV.

There is a lot about this case we don't know yet...

Sure, like why Patty Fitz didn't close-up shop after he learned that the "crime" he was empowered to investigate turned-out to be no crime at all. I would really like to know the answer to that one.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

I really don't know - but I do know that its a very important question that any serious observer would be pondering right now.

I don't think Fitz ever concluded no crime was committed. There is some suggestion that the leak involved more than Armitage.

Isn't that why Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice? I assume the final "justice" won't be known now - unless it comes out in the Wilson civil suit - which may be more interesting then this case.

This is beyond silly. "Any serious observer" knew this was a political proxy prosecution from Day One.

There is some suggestion that the leak involved more than Armitage.

Right, and there's a "suggestion" that Bush is behind the 9/11 attacks. Those are about as credible.

I'm done with this - I make it a point to not argue with silly people.

Besides, you have an assignment from Leon - above.

I suggest you get to it.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Since the beginning, this entire case has been about "suggestion." And the power of suggestion to captivate an audience, especially by creating addictive content for most of our media outlets. And all of that "suggestion" originated from the person who intended to create it -- Joseph Wilson IV.

I can hear the pillow-talk discussions:

"Honey, you know, if you send me to Niger and I come back and write an unverifiable and unfalsifiable pack of lies and then do an op-ed for the New York Times, I'll bet we can get this whole flatfooted administration entangled in a godawful mess that they'll never recover from.

"Mmmm. That's such a *wonderful* idea. I've hated my job over at CIA for so long because it's just so awfully boring driving to Langley every day. I could use some of that old-fashioned excitement. It makes me frisky, sweetie. Let me see what I can do."

"You don't think anyone we've already told about your working there will blab, do you?"

"Oh, no. They all think Cheney & Company are evil, or they already know it's no big deal. They'll all fall in line and then you can..."

"..wait, wait...don't tell me. Let me make it up as I go along. It's better that way. But if we play our cards right, we can get Kerry elected and have Rove frog-marched out of the White House and both get rich in the process."

"Oooooh. I'm getting wet, Joe. I love the way you think..."

"

All the journalists mis-remembered (or lied)..., the prosecutor mis-informed the jury at closing, the judge would not allow witnesses in for the defense, the prosecutor pursued a case for 3 years after he knew the answer to the question he was charged with determining...

Yep, I guess only Libby lied. What a farce!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

For #1, see docj below.
#2: His lawyers advised him not to.
#3: Nobody, prosecution or defense, called Cheney as a witness.

the great fortune of not uttering his words under oath, in front of a prosecutor and grand jury.

You're perfectly free to lie in the OpEd Pages of Pravada on the Hudson and on every talk-show in the nation and nothing will happen to you, but if you're not completely sure when a grand jury asks you a question - and you're a republican - you damn well better answer "Gee, I don't know."

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Oh thats just sounds like such a simpering child. Seriously, we can do better then that here on RedState.

Also, trying to tell us what we can do better than.

Blam.

If you want to try to follow directions, use the contact button up there at the top.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Don't you have a job to do? I mean, someone called BS on an earlier post of yours - the least you can do is respond.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

I don't respond to any comments which clearly indicate that the author hasn't read the entirety of the OP.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Place your bets...

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

The funny one is that docj didn't do a halfway decent job of setting the over/under.

Blam.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

if he actually had his facts correct before he was gone... Nah, not really as that would not have affected his views anyway.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

why do the British still stand by the story (remember the 16 words begin "The British Government has learned that...")?

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

that was just one of those unfortunate facts that get in the way of leftist thinking.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

...ten months after Wilson's trip. Before making an opinion on the Senate report, it would help to actually read it. When will you folks on the fringe left stand up and accept any measure of the facts instead of shilling for your fellow ideologues?

Sucking and ruining since October 2003.

If GW had any gall, he would ignore the MSM and leftists in Congress and just pardon Libby now. This whole trial has been a farce and he should treat it as such!

Damn, I'm still so angry about this silly outcome...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Bush doesn't have the balls to pardon now, but the clock is ticking.

Libby will appeal, appeal, appeal. By then it should be Jan 2009 and he'll get his pardon.

pardon Libby, I (personally) will not forgive him. I will also think very little of the people he has around him, including Rove. Damn them all if he doesn't rectify this situation!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

And follow it with a speech saying that he's not going to let an innocent man sit in jail so that a prosecutor and jury can smirk over what they perceive as a slam against the President and Vice President.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

he lied to a grand jury, he should go to jail.

We have a nation of laws and no one is above them. It doesn't matter why he was in front of the grand jury.

If his memory is different than journalists, he should also go to jail. Just saying...

We have a nation of laws... and no journalist is above them, it does not matter if they lie to protect their sources...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

...also fall under the rule of law.

Sucking and ruining since October 2003.

like Bill Clinton, O.J. "the glove doesn't fit because I didn't take my meds" Simpson, Sandy Bergler, or Hillary "my how lucky was I turning a 10000% profit in stock market in just 3 months" Clinton.

Right, give me a break. Mark Steyn is right, you guys want to follow the Stalinist mode of criminializing policy disagreements.

See the Academy

Don't let facts get in the way of a good political prosecution!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

* Plame was not a covert agent under the definition of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, contrary to Wilson's insinuations, which many of his backers, including in the press, presented as fact.

US Code (USC) TITLE 50, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 426, (4) covers one definition of being a covert agent.

"The term 'covert agent' means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five
years served outside the United States; ..."

Fitgerald has stated several times the CIA made efforts to conceal her identity and that she had made 'covert work overseas' in the five year time frame as of Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column. Fitzgeralds evidence to back this up still remains sealed.

She was allegedly stateside since Ames was taken down in 1994.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...and what she was working on was IRAN, I'd think you would have wanted the administration to have acted with the utmost of care, no?

But that Richard Armitage had other ideas (he's a funny fellow, that Armitage), and that so did a lot of other people on the D.C. Cocktail Party Circuit.

don't you think she could have kept her hubby from lying his butt off in the pages of the NY Times? Or is that not important either?

And 1994-2003 adds up to about 9-years using my means of addition and subtraction. So it's "close to 5-years" in the same way 16 is close to 21 when trying to buy beer, I suppose.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

...it was over the fact that since her WORK was overseas, even if she was not physically overseas, what was her qualification.

The resultant finding was that since her contacts and her dealings were outside the US, she was considered covert.

See the Academy

Look, Fitzgerald found that according to the CIA, she was considered covert based on the definition above and the judge in the libby case accepted his finding.

You can argue, "Well, we think Fitzgerald, the CIA, and the judge are all wrong", but the facts on the ground are that for the purposes of the Libby case (to which covertness was only important to assert the motive for Libby's lying) Valarie Plame was covert.

Served outside the United States
!= Worked on matters outside the United States.

The term 'covert agent' means —

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency —

(i) ....

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;"

The law is plain. The language is clear.

I work closely with a company in Finland. I'm on the phone with them everyday. I haven't ever been to Finland but by your definition I am serving my company in Finland.

Let's see what happens on appeal when the determining factor would not be twelve Democratic jurors who apparently had Rove and Cheney on their minds in the deliberation room.

...anything you like.

The appeal will absolutely fail and Libby, its intended effect to simply keep him out of jail to as close to December 2008, when The President will pardon him (ala Bush 41 in Iran/Contra).

Considering that you see nothing screwy with Fitzgerald's notion that working at a desk in Langley on the subject of Iran is the equivalent of serving in Tehran ...

I got nothing more to say.

What Loren and Martin said - even a dope like me can understand the plain language of the statute.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Libby (and by inference, Rove and Cheney) made a colossal error in judgment by trying to "out" Plame. First, if they had just let this play out, it whole thing would have probably blown over in a week and the damage to the administration as well as Libby would have been minor.

However, while what Libby did in outing Plame was probably legal - at least to the extent that if she was covert the CIA did a horrible job protecting that secret or simply refuses to verify her status for national security reasons - it certainly isn't possible to morally justify his behavior.

A man in his position should not be attacking any CIA agent - especially in a time of war - PERIOD. If the President (or his staff) has a problem with a particular agent, they should be dealt with through channels to insure that no secrets are revealed. What Libby did is, in fact, getting very close to treason since there was no way for Libby to know if there would be collateral damage that could result from his attempt to "leak" Plame to the press.

In fact, there was significant damage. Regardless of what you personally think about Plame, she was a reputed expert in nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. She was there for a valuable US asset - unless you think nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is topic we can safely ignore. The fallout from Libby's (and Armitage's) actions ended up destroying her value to the US. There's no real way to defend their behavior.

Finally, it is also clear that one the of results of this whole episode was the destruction of the CIA front company Brewster Jennings. Now the CIA won't comment on just what was lost when Brewster Jennings was forced to close, but rumors are it had penetrated ARAMCO. I don't particularly believe that, but who knows for sure. Even if it hadn't gotten inside ARAMCO, Brewster Jennings was involved in the Middle East oil infrastructure. Any person associated with Brewster Jennings is now lost as an intelligence asset. We'll probably never know if it was bad or really bad.

There is simply no other way to put it; what Libby did in attempting to expose Plame (while legal) was grossly irresponsible. I'm afraid that if Cheney and Rove where involved in this that the same charge applies to them.

That's an interesting doctrine. Whence does it derive?

It is a real stretch. First of all we have Libby, who you accuse, without any evidence of "attacking" a CIA agent. By inference his boss is also guilty. Also someone else, who works in a different office. Apparently, though, the person who actually leaked the information is given a free pass.

Just a few points you might like to remember before convicting Rove and Cheney by inference for a "crime" of which Libby was never accused.

1. Richard Armitage actually did it - not Libby, and not, "by inference" anybody you choose to associate with Libby.

2. It wasn't a crime, as Patrick Fitgerald discovered on day one of his investigation: hence the fact that no-one, not even the person who actually did it, has been accused of this.

3. It wasn't an "attack". It was a leak of nepotistic activity by a CIA operative who has made a fortune for her family by her activities.

4. The only person who has been shown to have lied about the substantive issues in this investigation is Joe Wilson who lied about the evidence he found in Niger; the basis on which he was appointed; his wife's status under the IIPA; and the involvement of the White House in revealing his wife's identity. (I will accept the likelihood that the last charge was merely reckless, and not a deliberate falsehood. He may have actually believed it, despite having no evidence, and despite it being false. The other three he deliberately lied about).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

not what I didn't.

I never said that Libby should have been convicted, or that Libby lied, or that Libby did anything illegal.

What I did say is that what Libby did in trying to out a valuable CIA agent (in a time of war) was morally wrong and grossly irresponsible. I'll even claim it was close to treason.

Note: I said he was "trying" to out, her, not that he did. If you paid the least bit of attention to the trial, it is clear that Libby actively tried to get the some journalist to name Plame. And it is simply not possible to defend his actions. Which you didn't even attempt, because you know what he did was wrong. All you did was throw up a bunch of red herrings about lying or the that is wasn't a crime or Armitage. None of that matters, however, when we are discussing whether Libby was right or wrong in trying to out Plame.

I mean, should the Chief of Staff of the VP try and get the New York Times to print the sailing times of the next convey to England? Because I'm not seeing much difference between that and Libby's Loose Lips about Plame.

I was commenting on your disgusting conviction by 'inference' of people against whom there is no evidence. Your running away from this in a later post does not mean that you didn't say it before. So don't accuse me of suggesting you said something you didn't. I commented on what you actually said, not what you wish you had said when you realised how stupid your and morally reprehensible your previous post was.

You know perfectly well that this is not, and never has been, about Plame's identity, or the person who actually did put her name into the public domain, not someone who may have tried to, would have been charged.

This is, and always has been about, in order of size,

1. Joe Wilson's ego.

2. Patrick Fitzgerald's ego.
   
3. Joe Wilson's bank balance.

You want me to defend Libby's actions. Sure. Easy. The IIPA is about protecting valuable information. It is about security. It is about protecting agents based overseas from being hauled in by the KGB and tortured. That tends not to happen to people based at Langley.

It is emphatically not about covering up nepotism. If a CIA employee abuses her position to make money for her husband that is not only not covered by the law, there is no moral basis for hiding the information. The law is a wall to protect CIA operatives working in dangerous circumstances overseas. It is not designed to protect nepotism and corruption, or to preserve the families of CIA employees from any criticism.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I disagree. What is grossly irresponsible is allowing ciphers at the CIA to undermine US policy because it doesn't fit their ideological blinders. Joe Wilson did just that. Possibly at the behest of his wife (while pocketing some cash at the same time) and certainly with the knowledge of her superiors at the CIA who did not put even elementary precautions in place to protect their covert worker who recommended Wilson for the job.

They did find WMD but not in the stockpiles expected (so spoke the media). The yellowcake material found was from earlier purchases (you guessed it) from the same place as Wilson denied happened at a later time. Such irony...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

The "additional view" portion dealt only with whether his wife sent him on the trip. Roberts, Hatch and Bond said that there was "no underlying dispute" about this fact, but that the Democrats refused to join this conclusion. The Democrats' failure to rebut this point pretty much establishes it conclusively.

The stuff about the conclusions of the report, the fact that Wilson made claims about having seen a document that was not in U.S. Custody until at least 8 months after his trip.. that stuff's not in dispute.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

The "additional views" are statements expressed individually by any committee member who wishes to do so. Dianne Feinstein had additional views of their own. Roberts and the conservatives aforementioned had their additional views.
No "dispute" was necessary against any of these additional views, as you imply. There was no Republican rebuttal to Dianne Feinstein's views.
There are numerous reports that support the Democrats' reservations about the validity of the three right-wingers' claims.
The Los Angeles Times reported that an unnamed CIA official confirmed Wilson's denial that Plame was responsible for the CIA's decision to send him to Niger, saying: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes." A July 22, 2003, Newsday article quoted an unidentified senior intelligence official who said: "They (the officers asking Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she (Plame) was married to, which is not surprising. ... There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason."

That's it?

From the Washington Post (cited above in the OP actually) and this is from 2004 - which means more had been learnt in the whole year since the 2003 article you're fixated on was written ...

... Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

Honestly, is it really necessary for me to have to spell this out for you?

Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger. She opened her mouth and told Intelligence Committee staffers otherwise. The "three Right-wingers" decided to write an additional note to make specific note of that fact.

Pointing out that Diane Feinstein added her own notes on some other matter says nothing about the fact that Valerie Plame said, contrary to her husband that she played a role in sending Wilson to Niger.

Even if I buy what you've said, then...

... perhaps she should not have recommended her hubby for the gig to Niger.

... or if he was going to go, then perhaps she should have insisted on said hubby signing a standard non-disclosure agreement

... or perhaps she could have done something about her hubby's - I'll be generous - less than truthfulness in the NY Times OpEd Page

... or perhaps she should have put the kaibosh on her hubby's book deal.

Or do she and her hubby have no responsibility at all for keeping her cover a secret?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Brewster Jennings was a dead front. It had been inactive for years though Plame used it for her contribution to the Gore campaign in 1999. Actually her dear hubby had given too much money to the campaign and they redirected some of the money to Val. She used her old front. Therefore she actually filed a false contribution report with the FEC - a crime and violated CIA covert ops policy to boot. You aren't supposed to draw attention to your cover - even if it is a bit dated.
Brewster Jennings apparently had no employees beyond Plame though some other CIA coverts might have occasionally used it for one-offs and pass-throughs.

Whether it was done by Libby or someone other.

We can continue arguing that Plame wasn't strictly covert or that she deserved it but that ISN'T THE WAY THE JURY SAW IT.

Oh, and you're of course aware that Libby wasn't convicted of "leaking" anything - right?

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

You are aware that Libby tried very hard to "out" Plame.

Are you saying that the we should make it a policy of outing CIA agents in a time of war?

Should be on trial
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Are you saying that the we should make it a policy of outing CIA agents in a time of war?

No, I'm not. Stick to sophistry - mindreading isn't your bag.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

You are aware that Libby tried very hard to "out" Plame.

Am am aware of no such thing. And you are stipulating to facts not in evidence.

That qualifies as the Peddling of Known Facts™, by the way - a RedState Felony, I'm told.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

Perhaps I'm being slow here, but my understanding has been that Mr. Libby was not on trial for the leak of Valerie Plame's covert status? And if I'm not being slow, wouldn't the jury's take on that topic be irrelevant to this trial?

Just wondering.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

The referenced charge only pertained to whether Libby told federal investigators the truth in regard to Matt Cooper. You are right in that it had nothing to do with a leak of Plame's status.

I find this case such an extraordinary abrogation of prosecutorial discretion that it doesn't merit serious legal analysis, and what follows may give the jury too much credit, but here goes one possible interpretation.

The jurors apparently were confused when Count 3 of the indictment read Libby had told FBI agents that reporters had outed Plame as a covert CIA agent although he personally didn't know her status. So to be charitable, I suppose jurors could have wanted to know Plame's status, and whether Libby was aware of it, to decide whether he lied to investigators about receiving such information from reporters rather than relaying it to them. If anyone thinks this incorrect please jump in here because this particular count, like the investigation, charges and trial as a whole, is so convoluted I may have mischaracterized it.

It very well could be what you may suspect, though. The jurors could have been confused about the nature of the charge, which is to say they incorrectly thought the issue was whether Libby outed Plame himself.

"When she was outed, the whole CIA cover company Brewster & Jennings had their cover blown.

And that company consisted of two guys: Brewster, and Jennings, neither of whom exist.

"All it was was a telephone and a post office box"

what exactly to you expect from a CIA front company?

You don't know what Brewster Jennings did because the CIA isn't talking about it. But, one would think they wouldn't go to the trouble of setting up a front company to do nothing.

What we do know for sure is the intelligence value of any agent associated with Brewster Jennings has been significantly reduced as a result of Libby's loose lips.

It was grossly irresponsible for Libby to assume that in outing her that there would be no collateral damage. In fact there was damage and for all we know the damage could have been tremendous.

I really have to wonder what the reaction would be on this blog if a Democrat's partisan politics had led to the destruction of a potentially valuable CIA front company.

What we do know for sure is the intelligence value of any agent associated with Brewster Jennings has been significantly reduced as a result of Libby's loose lips.

Correction.

Armitage's loose lips. He leaked it, remember? Established fact?

that Libby didn't actively try and out Plame?

If so, I really think we should review the trial transcript.

Actions speak louder than words. my friend, and I think it is clear that Libby tried to out a valuable CIA asset.

Whether or not he succeeded in outing her himself, Libby did try. And that attempt was morally wrong.

... was actively engaged with her husband in a campaign of slander against his boss. But because she works (in a non-covert role) in the CIA as an analyst she should be considered sacrosanct?

Sorry, bmbike, but working in the CIA does not give anyone the right to launch missiles at another person's reputation and not have to face any consequences.

Are you saying that Libby didn't actively try and out Plame?

It's he said/she said. If this joke of a conviction is overturned on appeal all this changes.

CIA asset in that she as an expert in Middle East nuclear weapons proliferation. Or are you saying that middle east nuclear proliferation isn't important?

And I've never defended either or her husband's actions. Nor claimed that it is a place to launch attacks against the President.

If Libby or Rove or Cheney or even Bush had reason to dislike her work or her "campaign of slander", they had a completely viable method of terminating her employment. Not by leaking her CIA status to the New York Times, but by following procedures and having her bosses in the CIA fire her. If they would have followed procedures, it is likely that the CIA front company Brewster Jennings would not have been destroyed.

Are you actually defending leaking information about a CIA agent (in a time of war) to the NYT?

Do you understand the potential damage that destroying Brewster Jennings might have caused?

Bottom line, the method Libby choose to rid the government of Plame (and Wilson) was wrong and quite frankly dumb. Libby did a lot of potential damage. And you should at least admit that.

Political appointees are fired. The bureaucrats within the bureaucracy continue on forever because they cannot be removed. They are protected by civil service laws and government unions that make their removal nearly impossible.

AND, because someone has knowledge in one area, but is playing politics in another, does not necessarily mean you need to fire that person; merely discredit their politicking, and let them go back to their analyzing.

and an excuse. See my post below on why the Libby/Plame matter should never have gone to the criminal justice system.

I will guarantee you that had some career bureaucrat used her position to willfully damage the administration as Ms. Plame did, I or someone from my staff would have shown up at her office and left an empty chair behind. Just the simple act of using your position to get your spouse a gig like the Niger "investigation" would violate most state Ethics Acts and, though I haven't looked, I'm pretty sure the CIA or OPM has some nepotism rule I could have hung my hat on to fire her. Even if I couldn't ultimately sustain the dismissal, I could easily make someone like that a very unemployed and unemployable irrelevance for a year or two just by using the governments assets against them. People like that can only work for government usually, the private sector doesn't employ many CIA analysts, so you can just 86 them from government employment. If they really are a D operative, they'll need money, so they'll go to work for some D non-profit or something and live to fight another day. Then they're left with trying to pursue some wrongful discharge action against the government and IF you're acting with the proper malice aforethought, you can easily bankrupt them while they're trying to pursue it. Sometimes they'll get a lawyer with a political agenda who can withstand the out-of-pocket expense and who can get the government to trial. Then, you just write a check or if you can't settle you take the hit from the jury and write a check. But by then, it is years later, and nobody remembers what it was all about.

The Bush Administration, like most Republican administrations at any level, has just refused to learn how to work the switches and levers of the government. There's a price for that, and right now Libby is paying it, but he won't be the last one.

In Vino Veritas

CIA asset in that she as an expert in Middle East nuclear weapons proliferation.

It does not mean she was covert, it does not make it illegal to divulge the fact that she was using her employment at the CIA as a platform to launch partisan attacks against the President, it does not make it immoral to let it be known that she was an instigator who was aiding and abetting in a campaign of lies.

Or are you saying that middle east nuclear proliferation isn't important?

Whether or not I worship at the foot of Plame's non-covert status is not indicative of whether or not I think Middle East nuclear proliferation is important.

Are you actually defending leaking information about a CIA agent (in a time of war) to the NYT?

Leave the poor straw man alone.
PS: I am opposed to Republicans having anything and everything whatsoever to do with the New York Times. If anything positive were to come out of this, it should be Republicans finally learning that lesson.

Do you understand the potential damage that destroying Brewster Jennings might have caused?

And yet Plame saw it fit to allow her husband to write up a false article for the New York Times, charging the President with lying to the American people based on his findings on a trip that directly contradicted his subsequent story, based on documents he had not seen (how come he knew about them anyway?), etc.

This is not some rookie CIA agent we're talking about. This is not something even a rookie CIA agent - especially whose husband is a diplomat whose entry in Who's Who mentions her as his wife - would do.

So where's her (professional) reponsibility for putting Brewster Jennings (the importance of which I think is incredibly overstated) in jeopardy? As far as Libby knew, she was not a covert agent, she'd not been stationed abroad in over five years, she drove herself to Langley every morning, therefore there was absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that she and her husband were partisan hacks and liars.

I never said it was illegal.

I never said the trial was appropriate.

I never said she was covert.

I never said Wilson was right.

I never said Plame was right.

My point is that if Libby felt it was the best for the country for the Plame not to be a CIA agent, there was a way to accomplish that without trying to leak her name to the New York Times. A method which would have protected Brewster Jennings.

What I'm saying is that Libby's actions - legal they may have been - were grossly irresponsible.

Once again, she was not covert, therefore there was no crime, or irresponsibility in pointing out that she worked for the CIA, that she got her husband the trip to Niger and they were lying about it.

Libby knew nothing about Brewster Jennings so shrieking about it does you no good.

But she did know about Brewster Jennings - the most important cover company in the history of American Intelligence without which the United States might as well throw its hands up in the air and surrender to Vladimir Putin and Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

When she decided to play politics with Intelligence she risked Brewster Jennings being exposed. The blame is on her, bmbike.

I can just imagine how outraged you have been about the various leaks of classified information to the NY Times.
Your presumed outrage is shared with many liberals whose cries for investigations from the rooftops of Washington still echo in those hollowed streets.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

implying that it is ok for the a senior member of the White House Staff to leak information about a CIA agent?

That's what Libby did... and legal or not, he shouldn't have done it. Surely you can admit that.

Your "So you're" post is in response to me allow me a few points; first and most important you ignore the thrust of my point. Therefore and to minimize evasion and possible dishonesty, one, and in the name and practice of decency, can not be angered at the supposed outing of a {non]covert operative but find the outing of classified intelligence ok This would put one in the position of at best being hypocritical and at worst being insane. Don't out the employee but out or leak the intelligence, hypocritical or insane, take your pick.

Next; putting legalities aside for a brief moment and getting back to hypocrisy, is it alright for the CIA to work directly against the President in wartime, remember you brought up the war time thing, by setting up a phony, limited{ it was Africa referred to not Niger in Bush's speech], and rigged report?

Under those conditions why would it not be proper for an administration to release information on how this effort by an executive branch agency was set up. Swallow hard, Plame was NOT under covert status. I do not intend to argue that last point, no one, repeat, no one was ever charged with violating the alleged basis of the case, not even Dick Armitage, for whom you might reserve some of your anger.

Along with my first post to you on the leak of classified intel I will now add the case of Linda Tripp. The classified information on her personal history was released to the media by the Clinton administration, you must remember the fun the media had with her appearance, her looks. A tad different reaction by the journalistic folks who gave us Secret Agent Plame. What's your take on that my friend & what lessons do you draw? That Linda Tripp worked for the government was not restricted or prosecutable info anymore than that Plame worked for the CIA, it was the release of her background info that eventually won her a $600,000 lawsuit against DOD.

Now if I may make some assumptions following your example I may conclude that it's fine with you if intelligence is released to the media, oooh but no names, as long as it works against an administration you disagree with, that our national intel agency can work directly against the President's office but that office cannot respond, and that you're fine with the Linda Tripp story.

I answered your points boobala,how about you answering mine?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

which is Libby's actions led to the destruction of Brewster Jennings. The White House had plenty of other ways to deal with Wilson and, in fact, if they'd just kept their mouths shut, this whole affair would have lasted a week, not 4 years.

Further, I'm not arguing about Plame's status as covert or not covert as it is immaterial to this discussion. (And for the record, I don't believe she was.) Libby should have had the brains to realize that by focusing attention on a CIA agent, he and Armitage could inadvertently cause serious damage to our national security - which is what happened.

As for all the cruft you are dragging into this discussion, I will say that the leaking of any national security data is a very serious issue. However, to claim that all national security data is equivalent is ludicrous and comparing what Linda Tripp did to what Libby make you look foolish. If you want to go lock up Linda Tripp for ... well, to be honest, I've forgotten a great deal of what Linda Tripp did, maybe because it wasn't all the meaningful ... whatever... if you want to lock her up for exposing national security data, fine by me. Get a prosecutor and start investigating, unless you think prosecutors and evidence and juries are luxuries we can no longer afford in this War on Terror.

As for Armitage, he's as wrong as Libby was, maybe more. However, I think the only difference is the Armitage was simply better at finding corrupt journalists with no sense of patriotism. However, the this particular thread is about Libby and not Armitage. But if it will make you feel better, I think they both deserve our scorn. Now would you care to denounce their actions as well?

Or do you think what they did was perfectly acceptable behavior and that the loss of Brewster Jennings was simply a price America had to pay to defend the White House against Wilson's blathering.

And finally I'll restate what you simply can't grasp in the hopes that saying it one more time will finally get it through your think skill. Libby's actions, while within the letter of the law, were grossly irresponsible.

Cruft to you too, whatever that means & and whatever .99 cent dictionary you got it from.

I am glad I've driven you to incoherence and I wish I could take credit for the decline in your already weak reading skills but I can't.

Somewhere above a birdie tweeted, and I quote," you don't know what Brewster Jennings did because the CIA isn't talking about it". There, we have put that one to bed, haven't we? Because if we don't know what it did then we can't use apocalyptic language like "destroyed" can we? Not that that will even slow you down. A hint, guess what the CIA does when one front company closes down, they open up another one, shhhhh, this is just between you and me.

Linda Tripp, lock her up? No bmbike you got it entirely bass ackwards. Please read my cruft post again & that's all I'll say on that one. BTW, I never said that all intel is equivelent and it is at very probable that the leaking of classified operational info is more damaging then the naming of a non-covert employee.

Now for the best; Plame's status is not material to the discussion, yes and the moon is made of green cheese. Best climb up into your attic and do some research over the past three years. You might even scout around some of the posts and other sites for references to her "covert" status. I have! A small thing indeed but it's what started this mess and fueled it. Other than that, not material to the discussion.

Truly I must sign off now, you can fire off a blast it it will relieve the pressure on your brain but I won't be around to enjoy it.

Cruftily yours,
johnt

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

As a taxpayer of this country, allow me to apologize for the poor education you received. While admittedly the definition of cruft is reversed for more advanced grade levels you apparently never achieved, I would have hoped somewhere in your past, someone explained how google works.

Anyway, allow me to elucidate you on
Cruft

As for Brewster Jennings, I certainly am no expert in CIA front companies, however, they are set up to provide cover for agents. Most agents (or spies) don't stalk around in trench coats at night with fedoras pulled down tight on their heads. No, they try to look and act like someone that isn't a spy. Typically, they pose as business men and they do business - while gathering information. So they work for front companies that are there to make sure that all but the deepest investigations will show that the business man works for a legit business. I mean, it would be pretty obvious if you tried to contact this fellow through his home office and one no ever answered the phone or letters got returned as undeliverable.

The thing is, once Brewster Jennings was outed as a front company, anyone that had EVER handed out a business card with Brewster Jennings' name on it was exposed. Everybody knew they were a CIA agent, and depending on the situation, could be subject to retaliation. We don't know, and probably never well, how many agents were exposed and just how important they were. However, it is clear that many people in the CIA were very upset, which is why they pushed for the original investigation.

But I will say that your claim that the CIA can just set up another front company is naive to the point of of stupidity. Front companies and the people they "employ" can take decades to clandestinely integrate themselves back into positions where they can collect useful information.

Whatever source of intelligence Brewster Jennings provided has been lost for a long long time. All thanks to Libby and Armitage's Loose Lips.

Was a dead front. It had one employee, Valerie Plame. Looks to have gone mostly dark in the late 1990s. It may have had a couple of pass-through agents using it for one-off jobs.
Understand this - it wasn't Exxon-Mobil. It wasn't Haliburton or Schlumberger. It wasn't even a penny-stock oil company. It was a poorly constructed, obsolete single person front.
See my post above about Plame's last (illegal) usage of the company. The one which actually exposed it as a CIA front (illegal campaign contribution to the Gore campaign in 1999).

We know it was Armitage, not Libby, that shopped her name to reporters. We have him on tape doing it to Bob Woodward.

So saying that Libby "outed" her marks you as someone who really hasn't followed the case beyond the the frontpage of dKos.

There was damage? What damage? She was a freakin analyst stationed at Langley.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Anybody with half a brain could see that when Wilson submitted his article to the NYT, it made and immediate connection for foreign intelligence agencies to follow in trying to determine how the US gathers intelligence. If Wilson was on such a trip, you send functionaries to get photos of him, his wife, his kids, and his co-workers. Right there Valerie's covert status is blown, because she is now a known face to intelligence agency. In order to protect against that you make anybody involved in such activity sign a standard non-release form, which the CIA didn't do. Therefore the CIA outed Valerie Plame. So why did they do it?

The original poster cites an article from 2004 citing the conclusions of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

You cite a 2003 article which cites anonymous sources.

C'mon, dominick ... is this really the best you can do?

Novak calls the CIA asking if Valerie Plame works there. The really concerned CIA says "yes she does". Exactly how does that spell "covert"?

in administrative investigations; whatever the truth of the underlying misconduct, the investigator becomes convinced that the accused is lying to him and charges him with dishonesty in the course of the investigation, a summary firing offense. There's a big difference between "I don't believe him" and "I can prove he was lying." In the administrative arena and in the normal prosecutor's office there is usually someone supervisory and not directly involved in the matter who must review the investigation and findings before the matter can proceed. I've had lots of often heated conversations with HR types or line managers along the lines of:

Manager: He's lying, I know he's lying.
Me: Of course he's lying, but show me how you're going to prove it.
Manager: Anybody can see he's lying.
Me: Show me how you're going to prove it.

It can go on like that for a while, and if you're in charge, at some point you just tell them you're not going to proceed and they can go back to their agency huffing and puffing about how the head shed sold them out and won't back them up.

Sometimes the ulitimate "decider" doesn't want to use the political capital to tell somebody they can't proceed and goes along with it. The matter then goes through an administrative adjudication process where someone would have the authority to stop it and ultimately goes to an impartial ALJ or arbitrator who usually will say, "You didn't prove it." I'll certainly admit that I let a few dismissals go on because I didn't want to fight the person who wanted the dismissal and let whoever on my staff had to represent them wear an nice designer bag over their head when they went to hearing; that's the way government works.

In this case, Fitzgerald had no boss; nobody to say no. Even if he had his own doubts, he was so far in and either so agenda driven or ego driven that it is easy to see how he would say, "Oh well, we'll let a jury decide." Then all the government's representative has to do is put the government itself on trial before twelve morons with drivers' licenses, and you usually get what we saw yesterday.

Only in the most extraordinary circumstances should administrative or ministerial acts be subject to the criminal justice system; it is almost impossible for a high-ranking, visible public official to get a fair trial for they will never really be tried for what, if anything, they did; they wil be tried for whatever the jury thinks of government. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what a DC jury is likely to think of a Republican appointee.

In Vino Veritas

it might be fine. After all, if someone feels they are being harrassed by an investigator they are free to resign.

In criminal law it is *not* fine. This is one reason we have public trials. Even when you restrict someone's liberty to the relatively minor degree of forcing them to answer a charge in court, you need to have something to go on. If a prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to go to court publicly, nobody should be obliged to answer the charge.

It is one reason I am increasingly uncomfortable about applying the term 'perjury' to statements given during an investigation rather than in court.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

is almost always a mistake, no matter who you are or the circumstance you're in. As much as doing it is attacked; anyone with a brain will respond to a law enforcement officer first with "Am I under arrest?" If he says no, you say, "Then I choose not to talk to you" and walk away. If he says yes, you invoke the 5th Am. and ask for a lawyer.

In this case, Libby tried to avoid the political implications of refusing to cooperate; the Press would have found him guilty immediately and simply piled on the Administration as a result, so, being a good soldier, he talked to the prosecutor. The prosecutor didn't believe him and now it is apparent that twelve morons with drivers' licenses didn't either. If he'd refused to talk to them, his perfect right, none of this would have happened, though the political price would have been horrendous.

The game is different in the administrative arena where you can compel cooperation and fire an employee for essentially taking the 5th and not cooperating (I'll not delve into Garrity implications where the conduct may also be a crime, but even there, you can compel administratively and take the disciplinary action, you just complicate the prosecutor's life if he tries to pursue criminal charges.) Frankly, a prosecutor has a far lesser procedural burden in charging someone with a crime, arresting them, shooting them if they resist, and taking away their life or liberty than I had as a government officer trying to just suspend someone without pay. Sadly, we should all fear prosecutors, especially elected prosecutors, e.g., Nifong, and those with special, usually politically motivated, powers, e.g., Fitzgerald. At best it becomes a game of how much justice you can afford.

Of course, the object of an administrative investigation CAN just resign, but few do and in my experience, most would try to finesse or lie their way out of it; that got them fired usually. The smart thing to do in a hostile or politically motivated administrative investigation is to resign and bring a constructive discharge action against the employer. But as I discussed in another thread, the government can make your life a living Hell for some years if it wants to, and usually if it is acting like this, it wants to.

I maintain my position that administrative and ministerial actions should almost never be subject to the criminal justice system. By that I don't mean garden variety graft and corruption, but that is often in the eye of the beholder and even there it is very difficult for a high-level government officer to get a fair jury trial.

It should be obvious that I am very cynical about both the administrative and prosecutorial processes; the tools are powerful but blunt. When I first came to work for Alaska's labor relations division, there was a sign on the office wall that said "F**k Fair." The sign eventually came down, but I'll admit the attitude remained. I think I tried to be fair, but I'll admit to letting some go because I didn't want to take on some commissioner or other higher level official who wanted something done, and if you willfully crossed us or decided to take the government on, we would get you, devil take the hindmost. I have little faith even in the professional triers of fact and essentially none in the criminal justice system and the jury trial system.

In Vino Veritas

And I thought I was cynical about my views of the justice system.

So here's the $64,000 question: If you had been Libby's attorney, how would you have approached his defense?

not a 'crat, and he paid the price. Any high-level 'crat would have just said "f**k you very much" the minute the prosecutor approached him. You just don't cooperate with those people; full stop. I've been on both sides of it, the done and done unto. The most I've ever given a supervisor or an investigator is something along the lines of, "Looks like you've got a problem, let me know how it turns out." On the other side of it, I've made life a living Hell for employees who wouldn't cooperate and won most, not all, of them. Government has enormous resources if it has the will to use them; sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

To the defense, I'm not an attorney, though I've beaten my fair share of them and had a lot of them work for me. At an early and single stage of my career I had a particular taste for the trophy wives of fancy attornies. They, and their wives, are good sport. High profile advocates, this one included, are slaves to their ego, and you just have to figure out how to use that. I think first I'd have tried for a change of venue, even a DC suburb would have been better. Failing that, and you probably would, you'd have done whatever you could to make the prosecutor overplay his hand. He'd be feeling like he was in the catbird's seat and would probably do that, then you just play it out to provoke error. With the jury pool, I don't know how you acquit somebody like Libby, so you're really just putting all your eggs in the appeal basket. Certainly if the defense still had a strike, one can wonder how the WaPo reporter got on the jury, but they might have just had to take the lesser of the available evils.

Right now I'd be thinking about a motion for a judgement despite the verdict just on the atmospherics. You'd lose, but get the right appellate judge you might get it. From there, you're just looking for a new trial in another venue. Better chance now because of all the publicity.

In Vino Veritas

of our system is proven correct by Scooter Libby.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.