Redstate

Hmmmm.

One thing not revealed is when Fitzgerald realised that no underlying crime had been committed.

At least I haven't found it.  Does anyone here?

The reason I'm curious is; I'm wondering what portion of the 2+ years of investigation were dedicated to investigating the "outing" of Plame.  And how much was devoted to investigating other potential crimes.

It's not clear that there was no underlying crime.

I realize he has not indicted, but every part of his speech today indicated that there was that crime underneath.

As suggested in his baseball analogy, he had a hard time "calling the pitch" (the law) because of Libby's perjury. I'm under the belief that after he truly wraps up the case with Rove and any other relevant persons, he will announce more indictments. Perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements are safe to give during the course of an investigation (as this is still ongoing), while the underlying crimes being investigated would generally be announced at the end of the investigation.

Is what this "Official 'A'" did a crime? It seems every insider and their mothers are leaking - and it's more like a water main burst than a leak - that Karl Rove is Official "A."

Yeah, so... I guess Rove is just a witness now, and if he did commit a crime, he's not going down for it.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey who served Reagan and Bush 41 have this to say.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR200510280
1771.html

I hope the left is happy, good luck getting anyone in goverment to say anything from here on out.

Here is part of it

(It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 -- and probably much earlier -- Fitzgerald knew this law had not been violated. Plame was not a "covert" agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Instead of closing shop, however, Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate and has now charged offenses that grew entirely out of the investigation itself. In other words, there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished. Unfortunately, for special counsels, as under the code of the samurai, once the sword is drawn it must taste blood.)

This entire episode is nothing more than a big joke. If I were granted the powers that Fitz. has as the special prosecutor I would start with Novac and work backwards from there. It wouldn't take long to find out who leaked this percieved secret information. How any person can condone this 2 year "investigation" and comment on it as though it is legitimate is beyond simple logic. After all this time we are no closer to knowing what the crap happened than we were in the beginning. It is nothing more than a farce. Can't all of you see that by now?

...I'm really encouraged by one thing about the Right's response to the Libby indictment: relatively few of us are rushing to excuse the alleged perjury and obstruction. We're getting a well-considered and largely reasonable discussion of the situation.

None of us can say anything about the disclosure of Plame's status, which is a low-rent problem to start with (no covert operatives were exposed to capture, torture and murder, unlike the Phillip Agee case that in part inspired the Agent Identity statute in the first place). The plain fact is that Fitzgerald either found no indictable violation of the statute, or he didn't find enough evidence.

But he did indict for perjury and obstruction. And  Scooter was really (and surprisingly) stupid if he actually did these things. I'm inclined to accept the theory that on orders from Bush, all White House personnel went out of their way to cooperate with Fitzgerald. Scooter would have been far better off taking the Fifth, but the larger political goals of openness and honesty would have been less well-served.

Now it's up to a jury to decide whether Scooter is guilty of the charges against him, and he will get what he deserves, whatever the outcome. There are exceptions (including some well-known radio personalities) but most people recognize that perjury and obstruction are serious enough in themselves to disqualify people from highly powerful positions.

Now here's where I think politically the situation is very healthy for Republicans: the American people will come away with an impression of our Party as having full respect for laws and a willingness to live with the consequences of breaking them, without making excuses.

Don't laugh. This impression will not come from the MSM, who think they've just been blessed with a new Watergate that they can ride to renewed influence and power. But let's give the people a chance to prove they can see through the partisan feeding frenzy. A big part of that is the sane discussion we're having right here.

the question of whether or not a crime occurred.

And while he can avoid that question in the indictments, it is going to be hard to avoid, when it comes time for a trial.

Discussing something that is classified isn't neccessarily a crime without a specific intent-if it was, several of our congressmen would currently be in the pokey.

If the case is a good one, I suspect Libby pleads, if it has some holes (and I think the three reporters are pretty big holes) there may be room for the defense to argue reasonable doubt.

But in the end, since there is apparantly no primary crime, I suggest Libby get the same punishment Clinton did, or comparable to Martha.  What would be rediculous would be Libby goes to jail for years and years, when in the end there wasn't a crime to begin with.

I don't quite buy the "sand in the eyes" excuse, because in reality, Fitz has to know if she was covert or not, and he could have answered that question yesterday when asked, and simply said-Yes we believe she was a covert agent, and are still investigating whether behaviors of individuals involved meet the elements of the statute.

Instead he pussyfooted around and played word games on that one.

"Now here's where I think politically the situation is very healthy for Republicans: the American people will come away with an impression of our Party as having full respect for laws and a willingness to live with the consequences of breaking them, without making excuses."

That has be one of the great spin lines of all time - or at least of this time. Rephrase: our party breaks the law it respects without excuse and that is a good thing cause it show we really do mean well. Too funny.

Btw how's that different from the excuses of the other party or parties? Or for that matter any group of seventh graders for a variety of wrong doings.  

Republicans pay for lawbreaking with their jobs and their freedom. If Scooter is found guilty, he'll go to jail and no one here will defend him. It doesn't matter in the slightest that there was no lawbreaking in regard to the Plame situation itself.

Democrats on the other hand will tell you that lying under oath about having sex with interns is no big deal, precisely because having sex with interns is no big deal.

was about who outed a covert CIA agent the first thing you would do is determine her covert status.  If none we're looking at a two to four week wrap up and then send all the lawyer/kids home to jump Republicans in alleyways.  There are differnt levels of classification in the intelligence system.  Not everybody gets a Top Secret or Need to Know classification.  It can go as low as confidential which means you can't bring the Langley dining room menu out to the parking lot.  Apart from the status of "one of the most beautiful women in Washington" I would hope some Republicans awake from their trance and start playing the same game.  to those who doubt there's a game afoot scroll back and read about the Dems attempt against the Anchorage newspaper on FEC grounds. It seems Freedom of the Press is negotiable.

If I understand this whole situation correctly, and if not, someone here please straighten me out, Libby has been indicted for having committed two counts of perjury, two counts of lying to investigators, and one count of obstructing justice about a crime that was never committed.  

Furthermore, if it is conclusive (you would think it would have to be or why are we having this discussion?) that the identity of a covert CIA agent was deliberately made public, why hasn't someone been indicted for that?

But this thing is not a joke, and the damage being done certainly isn't.  Look for the Democrats to drag out the trial so they can go into the elections next year with a Republican or Republicans on trial.  It won't matter that Libby is exonerated afterward, if indeed he is.  It will only matter that he (or someone) is on trial.  I think we are going to see this whole process drag out with Fitzgerald continuing his investigation and even if he brings no additional incitements, the democrats will say that he has cause to investigate.  Using that tactic, they can tar ANYBODY they want to by saying he or she is under investigation and thus cast distrust on that person.

It seems that Fitzgerald is getting a free ride here also.   It would seem to me that the FIRST thing any investigator would do is to determine if a crime has been committed, otherwise what is the reason for the investigation to continue?  To this very day, there have been no charges brought against anybody for having revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent.  If there was no crime committed, what in blazes did he do for the next two years and WHY did he do it?  I think the real question here is what did he know and when did he know it?  (The left loves to use that Watergate lingo so why can't I?)

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and looks like a political hatchet job.  If Fitzgerald is as good as the media and the Democrats say he is, then he knew from the start that it was a political hatchet job, and he willingly participated in it. It is obvious to me that from Ronnie Earle to Patrick Fitzgerald, the Democrats are executing their campaign strategy for the next election which is to bring any charges they can against the Republicans, and go into the next election cycle with all of this still in court.  Run the campaign saying the Republicans are corrupt.   If this isn't what this whole thing against Tom Delay and Louis Libby is all about, will somebody please tell me?

the text of his presser and the entire indictment, he seems to be saying that Libby lying kept him from getting to the crime of leaking itself. Libby lied (or is alleged to have lied in the indictment) about what he knew, how he knew it, and what he did with that knowledge.

that it's not over - Rove gave him something, some kind of deal, on Thursday - there very well may be more.

Don't confuse classification with cover status.  People are not classified - information is.  CIA employees (staff officers, case officers, or intelligence officers - please don't call them "agents") are either overt or covert (under cover).  Overt employees can acknowledge that they work for the CIA.  Covert employees use another organization for employment status.  A majority of the CIA population is overt.  Cover is very expensive to maintain so it is reserved for employees who would require it for purposes of conducting espionage - usually overseas.  Even employees that  spend most of their career under cover, usually switch to overt status when approaching retirement or if they are very senior and in a highly visible position.  If an officer were no longer likely to serve overseas or in a cover position, they can administrative revert to open status but usually do not because it is an administrative exercise that does not become important until approaching retirement.  Also, overt employees are usually discreet about their employment.  Even though their W-4 would list CIA as employer and they put CIA on all applications, etc., neighbors may not necessarily be aware of their actual employment (as probably the case with Ms. Plame/Wilson).

If Plame was NOT a covert agent in 1993, which certainly seems to be the case, NO ONE could have committed a crime under the statute.  The statute is quite clear.  It should have been the end of the story at that point.

"Lying" about a crime that did not occur and COULD NOT have occurred should not have the potential of 30 years in prison.  Libby probably would have had a lesser potential sentence if he beat the prosecutor to death, i.e. manslaughter.  This is justice?

consideration.  It may be that some of the information about Mrs Wilson was classified.  (Like her cover employment for example.)  While she may have been a "former covert operative" who was now in overt status, the information given out may have been "classified".  The law regarding the release of classified material. (the espionage act) is apparently difficult to apply.  But just releasing classified information may have been enough that Libby believed he had to avoid admitting to its release.

the prosecutor spending nearly an hour on worldwide television "prosecuting" Libby.  I think it was completely inappropriate to focus on the damage of outing a CIA agent when that is not what why he was indicted.  And, Libby is unable to respond.

Why is this fair?  Why can someone testifying before the GJ come out and say whatever they wish about their testimony to the press, including lying (that's not a crime) but Libby was asked by the prosecutor to NOT discuss his testimony and Libby has not.

Libby is presumed to be innocent and the prosecutor should let the indictment speak for itself.  He should have given general information about the investigation but it was inappropriate to lay out his case against Libby, especially in such a misleading way.

As has been said before in this situation, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

I do not care how "professional" Fitzgerald is or that he was in top form. The only bullet point that should be discussed is whether Plame had covert agent status, per the law, and if so, was it still covert. If the answer to either of these questions was no. The investigation should have ceased right there. At this point, only loonies will argue that either answer was yes. Further, to determine those answers, Fitzgerald did not have to even talk to reporters or officials. The guy is just another ego driven prosecutor looking to notch his gun with whatever flim-flammed chagres he can get an ignorant grand jury to approve.

blackhedd,

If I was a Democrat, I would say that lying under oath about having sex with an intern is no big deal because a statement about having sex with an intern is not material to an underlying investigation about corrupt land deals that began with the 1994 Whitewater investigation, nor was there an underlying criminal investigation to which that information was material.

I would likewise respond that lying to a grand jury about your actions regarding the leak of information about a CIA agent is, indeed, material to an investigation into that very same leak.

18 U.S.C. § 1621: "...states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true..."

Before anyone can be accused of, and indicted for having lied about his involvement in a murder for example, there must first be evidence of the crime of murder having been committed.  What do they not understand about that?  It seems to me as a logical person, the extension of that is that before Fitzgerald can indicte Libby for having lied about his involvement in the outing of Plame, it would first have to be proved that Plame was in fact, outed.  If indeed she was not, then no murder was committed, and therefore there are no grounds to accuse anyone of lying about his involvement in a crime that never occurred.  GEEZE!!!

Here's what Fitzgerald had to say on a couple of key points. First, Plame's status and second he speaks to the 'underlying crime.'

(Times from press conference video at cspan.com)

29:47

FITZGERALD: [Valerie Plame] was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002 forward. Her association with the CIA was classified at that time, through July 2003"

38:53

Q: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identiy of  a CIA agent to some individuals who are not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not in and of itself constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That's a good question and I think knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government - not entitled to receive it. And knowing that the information was classifeid, is not enough. You need to know at the time he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information. That he knew it or acted in certain statutes with recklessness. And that is sort of what gets back to my point, and trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is. And so our allegation is, in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we receive false information, that process is frustrated.

Even if some vindictive judge sentences him to a long term, Libby will be out by the end of Bush's term.  GWB will pardon him if that is the case.  That is the worst case scenario for Libby.

Others have made exactly the same point as you but it seems to me an even weaker argument. To say that Clinton's perjury is mitigated by the insignificance of the original offense is one thing. To say that it's mitigated because Ken Starr's original charter was to investigate something different is merely to take issue with one of the many flaws in the Indepedent Counsel statute. (To wit, that it permitted counsels to change their focus in an open-ended fashion.)

Either way, you're activating an issue that is of little interest to most people, and my original point was about the politics of the situation. "Getting off on a technicality" is a phrase which to most laypeople connotes a certain miscarriage of justice.

My point was that Republicans may just leave an impression of integrity by accepting the consequences of Libby's alleged lawbreaking, and thus get an unexpected political boost from the whole situation. This will make it harder to press the "culture of corruption" meme. Agree/disagree?

"It seems every insider and their mothers are leaking."  It's obvious that the #1 insider here-Fitzgerald--is not leaking.

What we're reading/hearing are self-serving leaks from witnesses and their lawyers.  

If you did, I'd be surprised you would comment that way.  Fitz gave us a basic lesson about how professional prosecutors operate.

When called into a case, they in fact do not first determine whether a law was broken (such as the '82 law) first.  They collect the essential "who, what, when, why" facts.  Once they collect the facts they look at the various laws and determine whether laws were broken based on the facts collected.

Every professional prosecutor approaches a case in this manner (and if you saw Fitz's press conference and don't think he's a real professional--I love the read that post).  When a witness lies to FBI agents and a Grand Jury in the the course of this investigation, they are charged with a crime.  What part of that process seems unreasonable?

I think Fitz does not know whether an underlining crime was committed because he believes someone is lying to him and he can't get to the truth.  When someone lies to a US Attorney in a way that prevents the US Attorney to learn the truth, are you suggesting that NOT be a crime, in and of itself?  I'd like to hear your reasoning for that.

and witnesses and their counsel are not barred from talking; ie, their comments, probably self-serving, are not leaks

yeap time to smear the prosecutor, because that always proves the rightness of your cause.

Eµ?ª?important question...

Libby's testimony, whether deliberately false or mistaken, did not go to the issue of  Plame's "covert" (or not) status.  Nothing Libby said prevented the proscutor from determining whether or not a crime had been commited.  That determination could and should have been made very early on, without interviewing Libby or Rove or Russert or Novak calling  them as witnesses.  So Fitz's "baseball" analogy did not work for me.  

In fact, I felt that Fitz was doing some misleading himself at the presser, in that he did not even acknowlege having looked into the question of whether or not PLame was covert.--and of course none of the bozos covering asked him that one.  

My question for the legal eagles is, once it becomes a matter of public knowledge that a crime has not been committed (because, in this case, Plame was not covert at the relevant time), isn't it an abuse of legal process to proceed with the investigation any further?  In this regard, the more important question is when did Fitz learn (or when should he have learned) that Plame was not covert?

I'm not a crim defense attorney, and don't play one on tv, but if I was, in this case I'd put the prosecutor on trial and show the jury that he knew or certainly could have easily found out, very early on, that there was no crime, and that everything done thereafter was merely an attempt to trip someone up.

I ask these same questions in my diary... (http://emtully.redstate.org/story/2005/10/28/23364/276)

In the press conference, Fitzgerald made the comment that as an investigator his job isn't to  investigate the statue. He gathers all of the relevant facts first - then determines if there is a crime. As a non-lawyer/investigator that seems to defy basic logic. It seems like the first thing you would do is to examine the statute and see whether Valerie Plame fit the definition of undercover in the statute first. If she didn't investigation is over. Fitzgerald never even establishes that she would be considered under cover - he just presupposed it!

Let's review:

Q: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identiy (sic) of  a CIA agent to some individuals who are not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not in and of itself constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That's a good question and I think knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government - not entitled to receive it. And knowing that the information was classifeid (sic) is not enough. You need to know at the time he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information. That he knew it or acted in certain statutes with recklessness. And that is sort of what gets back to my point, and trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is. And so our allegation is, in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we receive false information, that process is frustrated.

What the above doublespeak actually means:

We tried to nail Libby, Rove, and Chaney with outing Plame but what they did, if they did it, was not a crime.  But because Libby would not admit to having committed a crime, we have charged him with lying about a crime that he did not commit, and that was not committed by anybody.  Furthermore, if he doesn't roll over on Rove and Chaney with something, and anything will do, he faces up to 30 years in prison.  This is good for America because it all depends on what the definition of is is, and we know what it is because it is what we say it is.  Trust us.

the various comments of Red Staters with regards to the Libby indictment, it appears about half of the Red Staters recognize that Libby is in alot of trouble and the he deserves to be in alot of trouble.

The other half are criticizing and/or smearing Pat Fitzgerald in attempt to defend Libby.  I would advise the half of you that have turned against the prosecutor to recognize the greater wisdom of the first half who recognize there is no excuse for Libbys behavior.

There is no excuse for charging a man of lying about a crime that never was committed. There is no excuse for going on a two year witch hunt with an unlimited budget and all you can get the grand jury to charge is that the man accused of the original crime that did not happen, lied about not having commited it.

But I'll take you liberals word for this and we should take Libby to the first tree and hang him, because as we all know, it all depends on what the definition of is is.

find that article is not a news article but is a column in the Washington Post Opinion page.

a "criminal" investigation, but Clinton's lies were certainly material to the civil case being pursued by Ms Jones.  Are you attempting to excuse perjury in a civil lawsuit?  Last time I checked, they administered the same oath.

And, for the record, the material connection to the Starr investigation was a pattern of Vernon Jordan securing high pay, no-work job positions (essentially payoffs) for persons with evidence of the Clinton's wrong-doings, as he appeared to have done for Jim and Susan McDougal.  Establishing the extension of that pattern to Ms Lewinsky would have been highly material to the Whitewater investigation.

Knowing that the hullaballoo about the Plame outing is much ado about nothing, and assuming for a moment that the allegations of the indictment are exactly correct and that Libby did lie to the grand jury--the excerpted testimony in Count V seems hard to refute at this juncture, because he maintained his story even as the question suggested an "out"--I have to ask: Why? What possibly was the motive to lie about something so simple.

Libby is an extremely intelligent and savvy lawyer and government servant. He knows what happens to people who lie to a federal grand jury, excepting only Bill Clinton. And, he doesn't strike me as someone--unlike Bill Clinton--whose ego and arrogance overrides his judgment; he was described even in an MSM article I read today as a "deep thinker." So, why did he do it?

It couldn't have been a misunderstanding of the law--he's smart enough that he would have been completely up to speed on that by the time he testified, if not well before all of this started.

I haven't seen anyone really talk about this in detail. The MSM is frustrated that Rove didn't take a hit and wants to pretend he still might, even though Fitz's conference suggested to me that Rove likely wouldn't be indicted and, besides, they have abandoned critical and insightful analysis to the blogs.

Moreover, Fitz seemed to indicate that no crime was committed, at least that he could prove, so I would think its unlikely that he's going to parcel out indictments further.

So, assuming that no evidence will change the picture painted by the indictment, I'm left wondering just why he lied to the GJ or, in Fitz's words, threw sand in the umpire's eyes. I don't get it.

Black Prince, your ability to read minds is stunning and I imagine, quite marketable.

If I might exploit your talents for a moment, can you tell me what Scott McClellan REALLY meant when he said Libby wasn't involved in leaking Plame's identity?

Thanks in advance.

Good to see you smearing Fitzgerald.  You know it's funny, if I had asked people on this website their opinion of Fitzgerald four months ago, most would have called him a man of high integrity, funny how the opinions of so many of you change when you need to smear someone inorder to defend Libby.

For what it's worth, if your really going to smear Fitzgerald than keep in mind that it was the Bush adminstration who selected him as special counsel.

Absolutely, if the guy deserves it, and he does. Quit trying to excuse his outrageous behavior.

Fitz was really quite clear on the requirements of grand-jury procedure. For a lot of good reasons, grand jury testimony may not be disclosed by prosecutors and grand jurors unless it is used in an actual indictment. Statements made to grand juries are not subject to the same level of challenge by opposing counsel as statements made in trials. With what we know about the high integrity of the Fourth Estate, you can just imagine how they would misuse such information if it were publicized.

my reply to that would be the same as my reply to "Black Prince"

Good to see you smearing Fitzgerald.  You know it's funny, if I had asked people on this website their opinion of Fitzgerald four months ago, most would have called him a man of high integrity, funny how the opinions of so many of you change when you need to smear someone inorder to defend Libby.

For what it's worth, if your really going to smear Fitzgerald than keep in mind that it was the Bush adminstration who selected him as special counsel.

A lot has been said here about defending Libby by impugning Fitzgerald. It's baloney. They are two completely distinct issues.

Libby has been accused of serious crimes. If convicted by a jury of his peers, then he's going to jail. Full stop, no tears, end of story.

But Fitzgerald can arguably be accused of prosecutorial excess. This is not a defect in his character or in how he does his job, and it doesn't bear on how Libby should be treated.

I think the rules give all prosecutors far too much power, and this is a really big problem that destroys some of our fundamental freedoms. This is a big discussion that interacts in complex ways with national security. It's also a discussion that belongs on another thread. And the "poster child" that proves we have a problem is Martha Stewart, not Scooter Libby.

just so I know how to interpret your moral indignation: Did you express the same sentiments WRT the Clintons' smearing (wait, make that prosecution) of Kenneth Starr?

You would think it would be material to this case if the original charge of outing a CIA agent were accurate.  And you would think after two years of intensive investigation whether or not the original charge is true, Fitzgerald would know that and would be charging somebody for it.  Surely he did that yesterday, but I simply failed to see it.

But Joe Wilson is going to be on one of the Sunday talk shows tomorrow saying that his wife has received "threats" as a result of this and they fear for her safety blah, blah.  This is to bolster their case that she has been damaged and a crime has been committed.  Of course, their appearance on the front cover of Vanity Fair magazine had absolutely nothing to do with any of the publicity about his wife being a CIA agent, and their little cover photo and story was just to try to throw off anyone who might believe that she actually was a CIA agent. I'm sure he is going to accept some responsibility for the "threats' his wife has received as a result of her having been outed on the cover of a national publication. Of course, it was all a masterful plot by ROVE to get them to appear in that photo and story.  He tricked them into it. These people never quit.  Whoever writes the script for Wilson must also write for a situational TV comedy.

that Fitz didn't investigate the original charge and found it to be unsubstantiated by the facts?  By the omission of any charges regarding same, one can infer such is the case, no?

Lying is lying is lying, no matter how you slice it.  If determined in the eyes of a jury that Libby lied, he should go to jail.

kept me away from home working on an investigation for an extra year, I'd be pretty annoyed.

I can guantee you that if a prosecutor investigated some business matter or undertaking that you were involved in 2 years ago, and you testifed in front of a GJ, he could manufacture the same charges against you. If 2 people said you said something and you testified you didn't, bingo.

You will never hear a good word out of me about any prosecutor. Their "get somebody" egos are why we have innocent people on death row.

he will be acquitted.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Fitz was annoyed with Libby so he charged him out of spite?

Actually, I confess I do not know anything at all about Scott McClellan. I believe he is the press secretary?  He can speak for himself.  I do not watch TV, and what I know about this Libby thing comes from a brief viewing of CNN that was on at the Fireside Grill where I ate dinner last evening and listened to some good music provided by Bill Pound. He has a website, if you like good music, and I know you libs do because you're not all bad even if you are misguided, look him up.

But being able to know what the liberals are going to do is easy, because they have been operating from the same old play book since about 1966 or so with no new ideas about how to govern the country.  Well I'll give Clinton credit for coming up with something new with his relationship with Monica, but that is hardly something the rest of the voting majority would consider as being anything other than crass behavior.

Ted Kennedy is also good at crass behavior, unless you want to give him a pass on being a drunk.  Oh, and while we are on that subject, we know Libby is guilty of a much worse crime than abandoning a woman trapped in a submerged car to die a slow death.  Negligent manslaughter is no big deal anyway. Right?  The Senatorial leader of the national Democratic Party is far more important than some little gal working on his campaign staff.  She was a nobody, so let's give him a pass on causing her death.  

Look BT, I don't condone illegal behavior from Ted Kennedy or Louis Libby.  I just think America is headed into a mess similar to what is going on in England where the two opposing parties are at each others throats all the time trying to gain a political advantage so much so that nothing much gets accomplished towards governing the country.  I don't want to see that here, but I'm afraid that is where we are right now.  It started, in my view anyway, with Kennedy and Biden ruining Robert Bork, and it has become worse every year.

We can disagree you and I, but if anybody tries to deny you life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, I'll be the first person at your side to fight with you.  I think it is a big loss to all of us that this has happened.  For a long time I resisted in joining this because I didn't want to engage my countrymen and women in a fight.  I think we have enough enemies without fighting between ourselves and we are all diminished by it.

But I have also come to the realization that the liberals are not going to be reasonable. Nor are they going to stop taking our country down the toilet of secular / socialism.  The only thing that is going to stop that is to defeat them once and for all.  So I am enjoining the battle to accomplish that.  I'd like that to be as civil as we can agree to make it, but I am committed to the defeat of the liberal direction our nation has been going in for the last 30 or 40 years. If my remarks here have been over zealous in that regard, please forgive me. If I expect reasonableness from you, then you certainly have the right to expect the same from me, and you shall have it. The sun doesn't shine on the same dogs butt everyday, so we can make our points without being abrasive or gloating in the loss on the other side.  I'll try to stop gloating at what I believe is a rising tide across this nation against liberal ideology.  If I am in error about that, try not to gloat if I'm proved wrong. I was wrong once, but that was a long time ago.  It was yesterday afternoon I think, but I could be wrong about that too.

for him and his family and legal fees of a million bucks. Real justice.

life sure ain't fair sometimes.

start losing every decent, capable person for government service from SCOTUS on down because they have to consider personal ruin from witch hunts, politcal prosecutions and malicious scrutiny?

Those are profound statements brother.  You have caused me to actually THINK about them.

Thanks!

It's a bit of expansive spin to state that "the Bush administration" selected the prosecutor. How about, the justice department selected him, following longstanding guidelines.

Also, there are plenty of excuses for Libby's actions. Whether they are exonerative or convincing or worthwhile or justifiable or seedy or improbable are all subject to review by a judge, jury, free press and informed public. We're all free to draw various conclusions. Some of us (the judge and jury) will have the power to decide legal guilt or innocence and punishment as determined.

Finally, here's a sweeping question which I didn't see addressed in the prosecutor's press conference, aside from his observation about the Iraq war - namely, how can Valerie Plame Wilson be criticized?

him from determining at least the "covert" portion of the statute, and whether it was met.

To date, Fitzgerald seems to be indicating she didn't quite meet it-since he won't state clearly whether she was covert.

Classified and covert are two different things, and the law clearly defines what "covert" is and she doesn't appear to meet it.

if the lying occurs during a sworn deposition in a sexual harrassement suit case, where the plaintiff is trying to establish a pattern of behavior.

just being classified, isn't what the law defines, in order forthe law to be violated.

In order for the law to be violated, they had to have been covert within the past 5 years, and stationed overseas within the past five years (and they had to have a permanent station, not a quick trip in and a quick trip out).  According to the law, covert and at home for 5 years also doesn't meet the criteria for a violation of the law.

This is why, I think Fitzgerald's investigation has determined she wasn't covert, and that they couldn't charge under the law, given his inability to state clearly at the press coference whether or not she was covert.

Finally, here's a sweeping question which I didn't see addressed in the prosecutor's press conference, aside from his observation about the Iraq war - namely, how can Valerie Plame Wilson be criticized?

what are you asking? are you saying she should be criticized or are you saying she should not be criticized?

if this point is true.

the defense discovers that at some point early in the investigation that Fitzgerald learned Plame didn't meet the criteria for "covert" status according to the law.  His defense attornies can have a field day putting the prosecutor on trial, and may very well end up with a jury nullification.

I admit that I am troubled by the fact that there doesn't appear to be a primary crime here, and that essentially a two year investigation results in crimes charged, because there was an investigation.  I don't think it excuses lying, but I admit that I would be troubled, if Fitzgerald learned early that she wasn't covert, but procceeded with the investigation.  

yes I did.

Can she be criticized without violating the law? If so, how?

To drain the emotion from it, how can any CIA employee be criticzed without violating the law?

that in order to prosecute under the statute, you need not only the fact of improperly disclosing the information, but you need to prove the intent of the people who were impropoperly disclosing the information.

Fitzpatrick was saying that he could not confirm intent because Libby was not telling the truth.

The defense hasn't even had an opportunity yet to refute the allegations.  Things will sound a lot different after cross-examination.

The lack of a primary crime is troubling.  I'd like to see Wilson investigated, myself.

another law.  I agree that no evidence has been found that violated the covert agent statute.  

But everyone who handles classified information knows that there are penalties for this release.  It is not prosecuted and so I called it difficult to prosecute.

Just curious, if there is a law against just releasing classified information, why haven't we charged Wilson, and several US senators with it?

I identified it as the Espionage Act. And it had a date. I don't have the laws before me, but there was an excerpt from them we had to sign to be given a security clearance.  I agree that there have been times in the past when the law would seem appropriate to certain behavior.  I remember Jimmy Carter, (father of stealth) being chastised for being soft on defense trying to say that he knew some programs that were not public knowledge and they would have shown he was very strong on defense.  (The money for the programs had even been hidden).  Carter did not say it but you could tell it was on the tip of his tongue.

Danial Elsberg also released classified papers.  But the point is that the government does not like to prosecute these laws because more classified information ends up part of the public record. (Actually this is just my guess.)

and I still haven't seen anyone make a good argument for how they fit this case.  There still seems to be some missing elements, and I think this law actually exposes Wilson and Plame far more than it does Libby, but I haven't seen anyone on the left side of the blogsphere calling for an investigation into their actions based on the act.

(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000
-.html)

for Elsberg to be indicted either.  The classified information would have to harm national security.  I have not seen any one make the case for this first.  

And finally, what Wilson/Plame did is being chalked up to politics while the prosecutor is arguing that what Libby did put him over the line.  There is the hope (for Libby) that he will be able to show that the information he provided was "in the public domain" before he released or confirmed it.  This is why I can talk about what Carter had to do with stealth technology now.

with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

There has to be the intent to harm the country, or the belief that it will harm the country.

You can't convince me that Libby was out there talking about Plame, because he intended to harm the US.

And if that is the case Fitzgerald seeks to prove, he is going to have a tough road to hoe.

And once again, Wilson seems to be just as guilty of this, if not more so than Libby.  Why aren't we investigating him for these things exactly?

in urging restraint from those who wish to vilify this prosecutor, while conceding that the investigation and subsequent press conference contained some interesting anomalies.

with conspiracy, theft and espionage. The case collapsed following the break-in at his psychiatrist's office.

I could not recall the why but understood that he got away with it.

but if Fitzgerald is such a hot prosecutor, perhaps he is looking at these things.(Wilson). Clearly there was a back and forth here.

I agree that intent is a large part of the problem.  Clearly politics was the intent, the plan being to harm the other party.  Wilson put lies out to the public that certainly were attempts to harm Bush and Co.  If Libby had it to do over, he would probably have found a way to keep his statements in the political playing field.  It seems likely to me that in the context of the time he made the statements, he may have thought he was protecting Cheney.  He is the lawyer, not me. He may have believed he could do just what he did and either not be charged or beat the charge later.

And I am not defending the indictment, only that IF Libby released information that could have harmed national security, then the aspect of intent is that he did so maliciously intending to discredit Wilson and his story.  As there is an indictment, I understand that Libby's release was the act that was red carded by the official.  Why there does not appear to be a similar look at Wilson's actions is an open question.

if you are referrin to a CIA official whose identity needs to be kept secret for national security reasons, then no they can't be criticized.

But umm..why should there be a need to criticize publicly a private official.  It's not like Valeria Plame made some public statements.

If Valerie Plame did something Publicly then by all means you can critcize what she did publicly, as long as you do it in a way which doesnt blow her cover.

It doens;t bother you that the Bush Adminstration considers personal attacks a legitimate way to hand a "policy dispute".  If it were truly just a "policy dispute" theres no real need to even mention Valerie Plame.

well for Clinton.

If it hadn't been for tapes and a blue dress, Clinton would have succeeded in totally trashing Monica Lewinski-that train was well on its way down the hill, when the blue dress showed up.

I do not mean to justify those attacks by the Clinton people in any way.  But at least no one on either said of the issues ever claimed the lewinsky matter was a "policy dispute".

they, were experts at the attack machine, Monica is just a good example of an almost homerun, that the outfielder caught at the fence.

agreed. its despicable, not sure why the american people put up with it.

I don't think the Clinton administration's behavior is an excuse for any future stuff, but I will say in general it seems like the entire game of politics rotates around discrediting the other side, and not holding any punches.

I think politics is more of a "shoot the enemy before the shoot you" type war game, and it is a very dirty game within the beltway, and neither side can claim to have clean hands.

I think you're wandering into Libby's defense area. What do "public" and "private" mean? Does the distinction matter in the event of a "policy dispute"? How can a "public" official even have a "policy dispute" with a - let's say - "private" individual, since it seems the prosecution's case is going to hinge to a great degree on employment status.

This case is so weird in so many ways, particularly the unusual nature of the "leak" and background to it. It's also about the lamest "personal attack" ever, if you go back and review the original Novak column. It's arguably dangerous (the disclosure) but there's nothing remotely approaching the smears and emotionally overwrought mischaracterizations which typify political attacks.

It seems the whole point of ever mentioning Ms. Plame/Wilson was precisely the nature of the "policy dispute" - to wit, what policy involvement did she have and exercise in the role of her husband and his activities?

On the one hand, Mr. Libby may be as guilty as can be of the charges levelled, he may be a complete S.O.B., with malicious intent, and wholly deserving of whatever punishment is in store for him. However, that does NOT necessarily imply guilt by association with every last Bush administration appointee all the way down to Dept. of Education bureaucrats analyzing state-by-state K-12 test scores.

Finally, you state " It's not like Valeria Plame made some public statements." How do we know? How can we ever know? How much of the material which Mr. Wilson released came from her? Any? Does it matter? Does she have any responsibility? If so, how is it determined and reviewed, and by whom?

My view is that the press and most of the commentary has looked at this case backwards and inside out from the beginning. The limited scope of the prosecutor's investigation is resulting in the expected findings. What's far more troubling is what we know next to nothing about - what is going on at the CIA that got to this point? Doesn't it at least seem odd that a married couple of government employees are in this situation? If so, what are they responsible for, and who determines that?

it doesn't seem to me that the White House was trying to discredit Plame, or even necessarily to out her. Rather, they were trying to point out the problems with Wilson's story. He was saying that he was dispatched by Dick Cheney, which is garbage. The fact that his wife was instrumental in getting the assignment tells you that he's not as important a guy as he wants you to believe. You don't need to disparage his wife to make this point. And this isn't even a smear against Wilson but an arguably reasonable criticism.

but one of the practical reasons for having severe penalties for perjury and obstruction is that they waste the resources of the state. That is especially true when a case is likely to be no-billed.

The legal system is a human institution, and human impressions and emotions do affect the outcome of cases. Yes, in a perfect world they would be ignored and officers of the court would be objective, but this is not a perfect world.

The genius of the founders was not the elimination of human factors, but rather the self-cancellation of human factors.

disregarding the factual errors in your comments.  If they wanted to dispute Joeseph Wilsons claims, they didn't need to attack Joeseph Wilsons crediability, they could have just attacked his relevent claims directly.  I.e. explain how their intelligence really did support the assertions they made in the state of the union speech.

I will address one of your factual errors.  If you had actually read Joeseph Wilsons editorial in the NY Times, you would know he said that cheney made an inquiry to the CIA, which lead the CIA to ask him to goto Niger.  Joe Wilson did not say that cheney directly asked him to goto niger.

and her employment status was classified. It doesn't do any good to ignore or deny the truth. Too much is at stake.

You rely on Wilson's claim in his own article.  This contradicts what is widely reported elswhere.

are related.  As a member of a missle unit,many years ago, I had a secret clearance, the missles did not.  The iformation regarding those missles was classified and my clearance was related to the information concerning them.  You can hardly separate the two, as such there is no confusing them.  The level of clearance may or may not be an issue,I"m just wondering outloud and it could be germane.  Thanks for your response.  johnt

him from determining if Libby knew she was covert if he lied about what he knew and how he knew it. Fitzgerald said Libby's lying kept him from getting to the "underlying charges".

You seem fairly certain of that. Yes?

the widely reported claim was that "wilson said in his editorial that cheney sent me"

so yea, I then went and ACTUALLY read the editorial..and found that widely reported claim was false.

Too many movies floating around out here where people get their eduction about the intell community.

1. She was not overseas in a covert position for some five years.
   
2. Classified isn't secret.  It means you have a "classification" and the CIA doesn't comment on these.  But we do know that Joe called her my CIA wife at various social gatherings, that his website included this information, and that she openly drove to work at Langley's hq. Her classified status probably wasn't even "confidential", let alone "secret".  Indeed, the prosecutor said she was only classified and not covert.
   
3. NOC is a term in vogue because of a recent movie.  I seriously doubt most posters on this site understand the implications of "noc".  Even during her "covert" period she certainly was not a noc.  Indeed, she introduced herself to boyfriend Joe as a CIA employee during the time she was "covert".

Dude please.

the employee has to meet a very strict definition.

From the relevant facts she doesn't appear to meet them, and if she did, why did Fitzgerald go out of his way to skirt the question?

Having your position classified, having what you do in your position classified, and being a covert agent are all different beasts.

There is no reason Fitzgerald can't say "yes she qualified as covert under the statute, but to date we are unable to meet the other elements of the crime, but we will continue to investigate."

He didn't, instead he pussyfooted around the whole question.

While it does seem risky for the husband of an undercover CIA agent to go public.  But depending on exactly how her cover was constructed, I can imagine scenarios where her cover is not really threatened by Joseph Wilson going public.  And I have not seen any evidence that Joseph Wilson's editorial actually risked blowing his wifes cover.  So seeing that none of the involved parties have even suggested this as a possiblity, I am forced to assume that apparantly it was not considered to be much of a risk.

clearance.

The information about his job was classified, his employment with the Navy, and his rating were not classified.

Granted the majority of people who knew he was a nuke, thought he did something with bombs, because they hear the word "nuclear" and think bombs.

But it wouldn't have been a violation for my husband to say where he worked, and what his job was-only the details of what he did in his job were classified.

I would imagine the majority of CIA employees fall under this type of system, where their employment is known, isn't a secret, but what they do for the CIA is likely classified.

Wilson's own statements are suspect so they can't be probative. Are you denying that his wife had anything to do with his getting the assignment to Niger?

Don't you think Libby's defense is going straight to the whole "she's fair game" gambit, which IIRC is to quote Chris Matthew's hearsay quote from Karl Rove? Won't that be a key point of Libby's defense, as suggested by the elaborate gossip and deniability which his statements apparently intend?

Some call it conspiracy, others call it clever parsing, others call it perfectly ordinary leaking by whistleblowers, even if the whistleblowers are much higher ranking than normal.

That's why the trial could turn into an extended inquiry into press knowledge, sourcing info, and editorial discretion. I really don't think they want to go there, which is why if Libby's defense team releases a very long witness list, look for the "confidentiality" and "press shield" issues to come up all over again. Especially if the defense gets really aggressive and starts exploring links between the press and the CIA. This could head straight to a star chamber or similar private/off the record trial, which means it likely won't happen.

She was a NOC. And her cover was as an energy analyst for Brewster Jennings, and that front was blown, too.

NOC status has nothig to do with "being in vogue". Wilson had security clearance to know her employment - she verified that before she told him.

Dude, please.

and Brewster Jennings was her cover. The "facts" some people cite about there was no way she had official cover don't hold up for NOC status. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is and it's better for the country if we acknowledge that and address it.

speaks only to what we think we know.

Fitzgerald went out of his way not to speak to that for a couple of reasons:

• He repeated several times that he was only going to speak as to what was in the indictment;
  
• The investigation, as he said, is on-going, so of course he's not going to disucss it - that seems to be the responsible thing to do;
  
• He did say that someone "blew her cover" and that her employment status was classifed.

I just think it doesn't do any good to pretend otherwise.

Ive been really curious for a while now what does IIRC stand for anyhow?

what once again that doent make sense.

Wilsons statement can't be probative to what his own statement was?

the repeated talking point I've heard is "Joe Wilson lied when he said in his editorial that Cheney sent him to Niger".  So certainly reading that editorial is probative into what the editorial actually says.

"If I Recall Correctly" as I use it, but other things as well.

Here's the source I use:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

Sorry, I generally try to avoid acronyms, but they are useful sometimes.

I agree that Fitzgerald may have many more indictments ready, and having fired the first salvo at Libby, he may well be in extensive discussions with others about what "the truth" is, and how to determine it in court (i.e. evidence, trial, verdict, appeal, so on).

That said, I'm still struck by this litte thread of comments about Ms. Plame. How can we pretend to know anything precise about her? Whether she's "NOC", "covert", "classified" (which I think only covers info, not a human) or whatever?

It's the certainty of anything about her which I think remains unknown, and likely as completely intended by the prosecution so far. If they are certain of her status (i.e. Director Goss will submit a classified affidavit detailing her standing) why didn't that end up referenced somewhere in the indictments, even if only obliquely?

While "classified" info is somewhat definitive, I don't think "blew her cover" is remotely close to a legal or technical term which any party or observer can use to determine much of anything.

Am I wrong?

From Fitzgerald's press conference:

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

She had not been undercover for five years before this present episode erupted.  Did she and Joe have permission to tell their socialite friends at various parties they hosted about her employment?  Her employment was not a secret with most of the DC social crowd (Though the prosecutor has limited himself to asking neighbors if they knew.)

Through Libby to the wolves if you want.  He lied to a grand jury.  Just don't try to pretend a crime happened before the prosecuter's investigation started.

Your facts are just wrong.  The energy cover was never blown.  Her covert service ended.  And her post-covert service was classified as something other than secret because she was openly going to work at CIA hq and her husband openly talked about her employment.

Noc indeed.  Dude, pretty please for crying out loud.

Throw not though

What widely reported claim are you talking about?  The widely reported claim is that on several occasions and to several poeple Joe stated Cheney sent him.  This predates your article and talking points by ages.

You need to widen your view of truth from Joe's talking points to other news sources.  Being here at Red State is a good start for you.  I hope you get the help you need here to make more informed statements.

could you give us some idea of your personal experience WRT security classifications, classified information, and/or covert operations, other than the movies, TV, and or the web as alluded to by hoosierteacher, above?  I, for one, would like to be able to accurately guage the authority of the position you seek to portray.

"blew her cover" and "classified employment status" may be somewhat vague or not technical or legal terms, but they certainly imply the idea that she was "outed". What makes it harder to know is that the CIA never confirms.

Reading the indictment, I'm puzzled why he seems to lay out a case for Libby violating the law in disclosing classified information. Then he stops short of charging for that. That is why I can't help but agree with you that there are more indictment coming.

because the CIA (negligently?) failed to have him sign a confidentiality agreement (the same one KC and I signed prior to receiving our security clearances), thus no paper trail exists to support his prosecution.

Also, FYI -- I don't think a "public domain" defense will work.  My recollection is that, whether or not the info is public knowledge, federal officials are still precluded from confirming or acknowledging the information until it has been formally declassified.

You can't prove that Wilson was telling the truth about who sent him by what he himself says, given that there is substantial skepticism about his motives. I can tell you that I'm the reincarnation of Babe Ruth, but that doesn't prove that I am.

To repeat myself, and this is an awfully simple question: do you deny that Wilson's wife had anything to do with getting him the assignment to Niger?

"public domain" would raise doubts regarding Libby's knowledge that the information (Ms Plame's status) was classified to begin with.

"Just don't try to pretend a crime happened before the prosecuter's investigation started."

We don't know definitively one way or another.

Your facts are just wrong.  The energy cover was never blown.  Her covert service ended.

Again, that is not a fact. It has been reported that she was a NOC, which, if true, makes your arguments meaningless. That she went to Langley is meaningless as to whether or not she was covert. I just don't believe this should be taken as lightly as some are taking it. I find it very concerning and do not like being chastised for saying that.

no I do not deny that.

But I also do not deny that Dick Cheney had something to with him being sent to Niger.

But it's clear you don't understand what I was talking about.

I was addressing the talking point that has been widely reported "Joe Wilson wrote in his editorial that Dick Cheney asked him to goto Niger"

Thats the point I was addressing.

so this all started with your comment that..

He was saying that he was dispatched by Dick Cheney, which is garbage.

those are your exact words.  Problem is Joe Wilson never said what you claimed he said.

1) We don't know...one way or the other.

Well for one no crime has even been charged regarding "outing an agent".  This after a two year investigation.  You can have wishful thinking, but I'll take the prosecutor's word.  I agree with his indictmnet versus Libby (Ya don't lie to a grand jury) and I agree with his decision so far not to charge a for outing.  He stated that neither of the applicable laws seem to have sway here, and that Val was classified and not covert during the previous five years.

2) The noc thing again.

Frankly I don't care if the noc thing gets reported.  Other than hollywood hype, do you really understand what it is to be noc?  It means (in small part) the CIA will deny you work for them.  It means you will never get anywhere near Langly.  It means Val and Joe will never discuss it.  Val was (during her covert time) running foreign agents giving us info, the classic CIA covert agent job.  She was not herself an operative who was hands on, such as a noc might be (and which is exceedingly rare).  And yes, even if you are not a noc or an operative but "just covert" you don't go into Langleys office.  It doesn't work that way my friend.

3) I take it lightly and here's why.  A covert agent ends her covert time, "comes out of the cold" and gets an analyst position at CIA HQ Langley.  During that time she is openly a CIA employee.  In fact, she and her husband discuss this at parties (They threw many at their home)and Joe has it on his website.  Years later someone needs to go to africa to do a report on yellow cake (uranium).  In a cronyistic fashion this Val woman recomends her husband, a career diplomat with no investigative nor intell background.  This crony (joe) returns with a report that disagrees with every other nations reports (including France, England, Russia, Germany, The UN, etc) and other reports from our own country (CIA, DIA, State, etc).  In fact, the "tone" of the report comes off as partisan (Val and Joe have contributed to some hefty leftist causes over the years too).  So bad is this report that even democrats on the senate select intell committee disregard it as crap.  When the heat turns up on Bush (et al) on Iraq, Joe gets caught lying about Cheney personaly sending him.  Reporters who question the whitehouse are told to lighten up because Joe's report was rubbish, and besides, his wife got him the job, not Cheney.  How did she pull strings?  She's a non-covert employee who works right down the road at Langley and she's CIA (like so many people I used to know who don't care if you know because it's no big deal).  CIA gets caught with their pants down and asks for an investigation.  In comes a prosecutor to get to the truth.  In the course of the investigation Cheney's chief of staff (Libby) lies or at best forgets what he said.  He gets charged because he impeeded the investigation by lying.  Maybe he thought he had to protect Cheney or thought a crime was committed.  Who cares?  The point is He got what he probably deserves and a trial will determine that.  Again, no ones cover was blown.  The press and the left want to hype this issue, but the facts don't support it (even according to the prosecutor).  It's really a non issue, but the press wants a big story.  That's why informed people are taking it lightly.  What I don't take lightly  is how the press and the left have turned this story into an excuse to make a story that never was there in the first place.

Do you undertand now, or are you taking talking points from the left and not on the reported facts that seem to get lost in the pundit spin cycle?

Regards      

as if they are the undisputed truth and then disparaging me for saying you might not have it exactly right.

The reason a NOC covert status is so important is that their front companies are also exposed when they are outed, which endangers assets abroad, not just the NOC.

You seem to have your mind made up, so I doubt there is very little we will accomplish by further discussing it.

As to your first point regardig no charge having been filed, that has been addressed: Fitzgerald said Libby lying kept him from getting to the underlying charges. If you choose to believe Fitzgerald is lying, that is your right. However, that would be completely contrary to his reputation.

Let's grant that Wilson never claimed he was dispatched by Cheney or indeed by anyone at all.

If I heard about a guy whose wife was instrumental in obtaining an assignment for him, then I would just have to slightly discount his findings. You can object to that if you want, but that's pretty ordinary business logic. If I didn't personally know the guy, I'd want to know why he wasn't someone's first choice until he got a recommendation from his wife. I don't know about government, but most bigger companies have a lot of rules and policies against that kind of thing. (Oh and before you go there, it's not sexism. The exact same thing would apply if a husband recommended his wife.)

If the White House had reason to believe Wilson was going around retailing a story that they were skeptical about because of how he got the story, then as a Republican I certainly hope they would say so. That's not the same as a smear, which is a willful, possibly personal lie (and which the Clinton folks specialized in).

My original point was that no one in the White House had to disparage Plame in order to point out the shortcomings in Wilson's story.

My original point was that no one in the White House had to disparage Plame in order to point out the shortcomings in Wilson's story.

thats the point they should have only addressed the details of his story that were relevant (not how he got his job).

If there was some particular part of his account of his findings in Niger they took issue with..they should have taken issue with those particular details, not how he got his job.

Btw, you do realize Joe Wilson is just a small part of the CIAs fact finding missions to Niger, and they all came to the same conclusion that it would be impossible for Niger to supply uranium to Iraq.

unless Libby could find the information in print and specifically if he argued that he was referring to the release and "not" confirming it.

In effect this is what he was saying by saying he got the information from "journalists", but this only means that these sources would need to admit to these conversations.  Libby of course would still be in the position of insider and if he agreed it could be interpreted that he was confirming.  (We were always cautioned not to confirm what we were working on, our peers without the corresponding "need to know", sometimes enjoyed playing a guessing game.  Especially if it made us feel uncomfortable.)

I don't think the Prosecutor is lying.  Did you read anything I wrote?  Fitzgerald stated (very clearly) that lying to keep soemone from the truth, whether or not a crime occured, is a crime itself.  Didn't you listen to his baseball analogy?  He said even if the player wasn't beaned by the ball, it is a crime to get in the referees face or kick up dust to prevent the referee from seeing what did OR DOD NOT happen.  Or are YOU calling Fitzgerald a liar?

If you can't argue facts then don't misquote or attach falsehoods against me.  Don't do it to Fitzgerald either.

And again, if front companies were in danger of being outed, then the CIA would never have lifted her covert status.  But they did.  And so did Val and Joe (which they could do since she was "out of the cold").

Again, she was never a noc.  She was undercover.  You don't seem able to grasp that a noc is a type of undercover work that she could not have been in if she ended up in Langley.  Only the CIA can say someone was a noc, and they never do.  I don't know what lefty propoganda you read, but show me where the CIA ever called her a noc.  And do this before you write any more garbage.  Frankly misquoting me brings me to that point.

Also, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt because you think I posses the facts.  I just spent (wasted?) half of my morning telling you what Fitzgerald, Red State Posters, the Senate Select Intell Committee, and others have pointed out.  You don't produce any sources.  You're out of your depth here.  May I suggest you start using sources as I have, and to stop casting false light on what others say by taking the timeto read their posts?

I agree with you on one point.  There is nothing to be gained by further discussion.  Perhaps you would find yourself better able to discuss this with your like minded friends at Kos.  

Joe Wilsons name with respect to the Niger matter was not even in the public domain before his editorial.  

How he got his job is in fact relevant if it gives you reason to suppose he might have been the best guy for it. I still think there was nothing wrong with pointing this out.

You state that CIA knew from multiple sources that Niger could not supply uranium to Iraq. But you say nothing about whether Iraq actually made the attempt. Two questions:

1. Do you have evidence that CIA actually established from multiple sources that Saddam Hussein made no overtures to Niger for the purpose of obtaining uranium?
   
   
2. If the CIA knew that Niger could not supply any uranium to Iraq (regardless of whether Hussein was asking them for it), then were they too incompetent to realize it, or did they intentionally hide the evidence?

1.  I do not know if this is true or just a republican talking point, but it was my understanding that Iraq made requests to Niger for Uranium.  But actually it's probably not true, because Iraq would have been pretty stupid to make such a request, cause it is well known they could not get enough Uranium from Niger to make one nuclear bomb.  It's because of these technical details that the CIA never took these stories too seriously to begin with.  
   
2.  No clue what you are asking.

Sure she was "outed", but by whom and when. Seems like Fitzgerald isn't really interested in pursuing Libby on this, probably for the good reason that he didn't do it.

As for the remaining indictments, they could wander all over the place, but I suspect they'll sound a lot like what has already been tossed out - perjury, obstruction, false statements and so on.

If it heads in the direction of the CIA or the press, I don't think any trial will occur, much less any discovery or witness questioning, although I would love to see that. The defenses are too strong on this turf, and the danger of disclosure too great. It's a shame, in a way, but it does keep the political battles in the press and the legislature where they belong.

I'll try this one more time.  It was widely reported that Joe had told others that Cheney sent him.  His self serving little article has nothing to do with it.  His name came up in the public after the "scandal" occured.  But his remarks (article or not) were made in bravado at social events before the "scandal" occured.  The widely reported fact of this had no need to be reported until someone cried scandal.

How about a timeline?  Joe comes home.  His report is laughed out of committee (even by the dems) because it is so shoddy.  Never-the-less, Joe brags to others that he had been on a mission and the VICE PRESIDENT himself sent this little nobody.  When the press comes to the whitehouse about Joe's report, they are told that Joe wrote a rubbish report contradicted by everyone from the UN to Frnace to England to our other US intell reports.  They are also told that what they heard about the VP sending Joe is wrong.  Scandal erupts, Joe writes article and keeps making an ass of himself with public statements.  The CIA, embarassed at the negative press of sending a crony who wrote a leftist talking points memo asks for an investigation.

So what if it wasn't in the public domain?  It is now.  And I never claimed there was anything in the public domain before the scandal.  Before the scandal Joe was just a washed up has been and his wife was a CIA desk jockey.  No one cared.  

a recitation of your personal credentials to address issues such as security classification, classified documents, and/or covert opertions?  I see you've answered several threads since my initial inquiry (including one of my own), why not this one?

It would appear you and Joe Wilson have something in common -- inadequate experience/expertise for the role you've assumed?

apparantly in your vernacular "widely reported" does not mean it is in the public domain.  That my friend is not very "widely" reported at all.

Which reporter specificially asked the whitehouse,"tell us about Joe Wilson we heard Dick Cheney sent him to Niger?" before July 6, 2003?  I very seriously doubt you can name such evidence, because as far I knew there is no evidence that any reporter asked the whitehouse about Joe Wilson Prior to his editorial.

Also, why does the whitehouse need to dispute Publicly a fact, that is not in the Public Domain.

Thats like if I make up some Rumor about George Bush and tell my brother it.  So now there are a handfull of people who know some fake rumor about Bush, is it really appropriate for the whitehouse to make an effort to dispute a fact that only a handful of people know anyhow?

that is why..or maybe he just hasn't seen your comment.  I know its very easy to not notice comments on these scoop websites.

is that Fitzgerald said that Libby lying kept him from getting to the underlying charges. THAT'S the "kicking sand in the ump's eyes" reference. The indictment IS a source and I suggest reading it.

"Again, she was never a noc. "

You are presenting that as face, which it certainly is not.

For some reason, you seem to think my feelings are hurt by what you have written. I do not think that is possible.

but your attribution to it being a "republican talking point" is not.  In fact, according to your hero Joe Wilson, in June 1999 the former Prime Minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, met with an Iraqi delegation for the purposes of discussing "expanding commercial relations", which PM Mayaki understood to mean "uranium yellowcake sales."  Subsequently, the US intelligence community modified it's stance on foreign intelligence reporting in this area, and viewed it much less skeptically.  Joe Wilson's report actually confirmed most analysts' suspicions, rather than refuting them as he claimed.

I just can't give up on you God help me.

I read it, and read his statement to the press.  He clearly said that obstruction is a crime whether or not the underlying crime occured or not.  If you can't understand that I guess you never will.

Noc.  Again, try to demonstrate that she was a noc.  Has the CIA ever said this?  They would be the only ones who can say so with authority.  By definition, the never can.  Again (and again, and again) I'm waiting.  Well not really.  We both know that you can't source it.

Your feelings mean nothing to me.  I could care less if you want to take things in a personal way.  If you continue not to provide sources as to the noc issue and you continue to be unable to separate obstruction from the existence of a separate crime that may or may not exist that is your problem.

I hope your having a fine day and enjoying yourself.  But I'm not responsible for how you react to others posts.  Nor did I state that I did.  That is yet something else from your imagination.  Hey, you brought it up.

Are you disputing that Valerie was ever a NOC?

or are you disputing that Valeire was a NOC in 2003

when novak wrote his article?

He said (paraphrased) that even if Plame was working in a relatively safe desk job in Langely, in order to recruit people to invest their lives in working for the nation's security and protection, they have to have confidence that their anonymity will be safeguarded and not sacrificed to politics. He said the damage goes beyond the outing of one agent.

by this law in 2003. You can't because she wasn't.

Try finding responsible, capable people to work in high level positions in administrations if they think they may get caught up in some political witch hunt by an ego driven prosecutor.

was that a reply to my comment?  Did i mention any law?

because that would be meaningless. I could say anything: I could say I have experience in dealing in classified information or I could say I'm a law professor or I could say anything.

You can gauge my comments however you wish. I'm not trying to be unhelpful just not going to engage, and you can take that anyway you wish.

that Fitzgerald spoke to not being able to get to the underlying charges because he was lied to.

" He clearly said that obstruction is a crime whether or not the underlying crime occured or not.  If you can't understand that I guess you never will."

Of course it is, that's basic. That also is not what I was talking about. That in no way implies that there was no underlying crime, as you seem to interpret it. Nor does it imply that there was - I am saying it is not as cut and dry as you state.

Libby lied and got caught.  I'm just trying to clarify your position.  Is it that alot of people in high positions are committing crimes, but if they get caught the prosecutor is defending the law if the criminal is not of my party, but engaging in a witch hunt if the criminal belongs to the same party I do? What makes Fitzgerald the bad guy?  Is it that the outcome embarrasses the administration?

and you don't know whether Libby lied or not.

still believe she was covert in 2003. RIP

Plame's employment with the CIA was classified.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Libby Indictment

You have no way of knowing that for sure.

that isn't what the quote says at all. It mentions two separate issues: 1) employment status and 2) affiliation.

Plame sat on more than one interagency workgroup and introduced her husband at a meeting at State when they were consulted about sending Ambassador Joe to Niger. The CIA press office confirmed that she was an employee when Novak inquired about it. Her employment, per se, was not classified.

From Fitzgerald's press conference

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.

classified does not fall under the law. Read the law and stop showing your ignorance.

why are you arguing about such a silly point, according to common wisdom, her status was classified, but she was not a "covert agent" as defined in the IIPA.

So okay big deal, so maybe the technical nature of the IIPA law wasn't violated, that doesnt change the fact that what Libby did was clearly WRONG.  Look Bush now knows that Libby and Rove leaked classified info to reporters, why hasn't Bush revoked Rove's security clearance????????????????????????????????

People can try to argue all they want that no laws were broken.  That's whats typically referred to as "getting off on a technicality", it doesn't excuse there behavior, and we have a Commander in Chief who apparantly is willing to excuse their behavior, as long as they didn't technically break the law.  I don't understand how anybody can honestly defend Rove and Libby.

Rant rant rant.

it maybe true that it is a little bit of rant, a rant with truth in it.  do you have a more substantive reply than it is just a "rant"?

don't always amount to criminal behavior don't you?

The IIPA statute is very specific, with specific defintions that must be met-it sets a pretty high bar.

I have seen all sorts of other arguments under espionage as well, but I am not seeing that one either.

I think we may agree on the ethics of the situation, although why Wilson gets a pass wrt to his lack of ethics is beyond me.

I couldn't have said it better than you said it yourself :)

that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

everybody seems to be focusing on the "criminality" of it, and ignoring the ethics or morality of it.

seeing that her affiliation with the CIA was her employment status, what very subtle distinction do you believe fitzgerald is trying to make in that statement.

without being abrasive - just a suggestion.

Meanwhile, I actually have read the law; perhaps the definition will be helpful:

(4) 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;..

Do you know for a fact that she had not been overseas for 5 years prior to 2003? Note, that the legal definition does not require an agent to live overseas nor does it preclude short trips outside the US. We have no way of knowing if she fits that description.

The CIA asked for this investigation. They submitted a detailed questionnaire to the Justice Department to initiate an investigation into whether the incident amounted to a "violation of federal law that prohibits unauthorized disclosures of classified information." What was their point? Are they not in position to know?

Keeping in mind that leaking classified information is only illegal if the leaker knows it's classified, do you support leaking classified information to reporters by government officials? Libby signed SF 312:

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand

that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

-----

In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

---

Bottom line: the "ignorance" lies in proclaiming that you know something for a fact, and that anyone who disagrees is "ignorant", when you don't have all the information make such a proclamation.

2003-1996 = 7 years. RIP

sounds like your trying to play some sort of semantics game.

so I don't think I have heard your opinion on the following issue.

Do you think Rove should have his security clearance revoked?

that she had not been out of the country since 1996 - is that right? How do you know that for a fact?

"I could say anything" would appear to undermine the regard for the truth that you have been passionately promoting WRT Fitzgerald's allegations.

And for the record, the reason I asked was not to exclude you from the conversation.  You're free to engage on any and all subjects (as far as I'm concerned) within the bounds of the RS rules.  Nonetheless, it might surprise you to learn that some of us here at RS do have personal, first-hand experience in these areas, so when we call into question the NOC status of Ms Plame, we bring a point of view to the conversation that merits greater consideration.

Just a thought.

No one has contended that she had any overseas assignments in the interim.

overseas. So I am asking how you "know" she had not been overseas.

neither he or his wife had been posted overseas after their marriage and move back stateside.

I can't recall the interview, they are all a big blur now.  It may have been in the Vanity Fair one, or an interview transcript.

Also, if I remember correctly to qualify a covert agent has to have a permanent station overseas, not just go popping in and out on occassion-but my memory may be faulty-it has been a while since I played the Plame speculation and tinfoil hat game.

merely says one must have "served overseas" and does not preclude a trip out of the US. One does not have to be posted.

I think it's beyond "tinfoil hat" when Fitzgerald says someone "blew her cover" and said that her employment status was classifed up to July 2003 when she was outed.

isn't played that way.  The burden is on the prosecutor to prove the elements of the crime, not the defendant to disprove those elements.  And, from the public record I'm aware of, no evidence of Ms. Plame's covert agent status (as defined in IIPA) exists.  It would be wrong, therefore, to allege otherwise.  As I mentioned in another thread, it's commonly known as "innocent until proven guilty"; a phrase, I'm beginning to believe, of which you are either ignorant or contemptuous.  Care to tell us which?

" As I mentioned in another thread, it's commonly known as "innocent until proven guilty"; a phrase, I'm beginning to believe, of which you are either ignorant or contemptuous."

TBone was saying it is a "fact" that she was not covert. I think it's obvious he, and you, cannot prove that. We don't know for sure one way or another. We are not talking about a court of law, but about what we "know." Nowhere have I said Libby is guilty - you are mixing arguments.

The point, my dear Glic, of "innocent until proven guilty", is a presumption of innocence.  That is the presumption that Tbone is making.  You, on the other hand, are making the opposite presumption: one of guilt.  Specifically, that an element of the crime has been fulfilled, when there is no evidence in the public record to support such an allegation.  And your fallback rationale rests entirely upon demanding your adversaries disprove a negative, a line of reasoning that may have worked well in Mother Russia, but it doesn't play in Peoria.

Using your philosophy, one could just as easily allege that Libby stole the Hope Diamond, but until 1) there was evidence that the diamond was stolen, and 2) that evidence pointed to Libby as the perpetrator, it would be improper to presume that he did.

See also, "Facts Not in Evidence".

Tbone is saying that it is known that Plame was NOT covert. Try and focus and stay on point here. He is wrong about that and now, because you lost the argument, you are distracting with something that was not even being arugued. Go back and follow the thread. It's interesting to me that both you and Tbone, when faced with facts that destroy your argument, resort to personal attacks, rather than arguing the facts. But I guess that's the tactic of someone losing an argument.

Have a nice day.

see if you can do that - stay on point. Without talking about Libby, or innocent or guilty, tell me how you "know" that Plame was not covert, that it is an incontrovertible "fact." THAT is what was being discussed here.

Good point.The whole purpose of this thing is to somehow prove that Bush lied about the War.

but if her employment was not a secret,and she didn't do much to keep it such,and her job description was not a secret but only the information she possesed,then where are we.  There is still an odor to all this that sicks to the nostrils.

That is what is troubling me about this matter.

His reference to her "classified" status is a red herring, and  is misleading.

And why would he skirt the question?  Because if he addresses it directly, and admits that she was not "covert", people are going to demand to know why he didn't shut down the investigation once her non-covert status was determined.  The suspicion is strong that  he skirted the question to cover his own butt.

Fitz may not have wanted to address it at the presser, but he cannot duck the question for long.  Libby's lawyers will get discovery.

under a Democratic president, and a Democratic vice-president's advisor had been indicted, that the talking points would be exactly reversed.

what a bizarre response to such a simple question.

show you the evidence of Libby's innocence, the moment you prove to me that you have stopped "beating your wife."

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand, but when you assert that Ms Plame was a "covert agent", what you are in fact doing  (whether you realize it or not) is establishing an element of the crime.  This would be fine, if you had any real evidence to support your view, but I doubt that you do.  If I'm wrong, might I suggest you call Mr Fitzgerald -- he's been unable to ascertain any such thing after 22 months of investigation with the full resources of the DoJ at his behest.  Lacking such evidence, you hurl your assertions nonetheless, and then have the chutzpah to demand the accused (and those supporting him) prove you wrong.  Sorry -- it don't work that way, and if you think it does, then let me refer you to my opening prerequisite for a response to your question.