Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

You gonna let her get away with that, revel? Show her who's boss.

nope, just honest, and a trait i am still waiting to see exhibited in your posts on this and other threads about the fitzgerald investigations and recent indictments.

btw: in case your memory fails you your remarks in august contesting whether plame was covert were addressed in the fitzgerald indictment and press conference and as usual you were entirely wrong. but then again, who are we to believe, you or a US attorney.?

why you of course. who would believe a harvard man.

Fitzgerald for Supreme Court.

Imagine the PR win for Bush if he now made that nomination. It would be perceived as jam-packed with integrity given that Fitzgerald just indicted a senior white house aide and given that Fitzgerald is coming to represent tough-minded respect for law that trumps any sort of partisan leaning. This would be an appointment which would pull America together.

But it won't happen, and why it won't tells a very sad and alarming tale about the extremism of the modern conservative movement and this administration.

Division is desired.

A moderate and thoughtful Republican voice...
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/whitman.html

I watched the Fitzerold interview yesterday which lasted I think almost an (or more than) a hour. I think it will be hard for republicans to go after this guy in thier usual manner. He is so controlled in what he says. So they're going after Joe Wilson. Tyical. However he did explain a few things which were unclear before, such as Plame being classified and that being a crime. His soft ball game anylogy was a smart politcial way to say that he couldn't charge the main crime because of the obstruction of justice charge which makes the obstruction of charge a big issue.

Libby is laying the groundwork for an Iran contra defense. If he was smart and as loyal to the good of the republican party as everyone thinks he would just plead guilty so this would have to go away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation

sad, but true.
It became quite obvious early in the GWB years that an "us v them " admin was being handed us.

FYI: "Insulting, pompous blowhard" does not equal "honest."



Nice try ... actually, not really that good a try. Let me point out the many holes:

First, I wonder what your questionable memory recalls were my remarks regarding whether Plame was a "covert agent," as that term is defined in the IIPA. More than likely, you made an erroneous assumption back then (as you are want to do), and this post is merely a furtherance of that mistake. Back in August, I questioned whether she was, but did not assert she was NOT a "covert agent."

Second, back in August I made it very clear that the IIPA must clearly state what is meant by the term "covert agent," since that is a term of art. And that ultimately, if it reaches that level, a trier of fact -- a jury -- must decide whether Plame was a "covert agent," based on the facts and the IIPA. It does not hinge upon Fitzgerald's or the CIA's belief. An indictment is merely a charge, and Fitzgerald's comments are obviously less weighty that.

Finally, unless Fitzgerald specifically said she was a "covert agent," your point is meaningless per usual. He called her "classified," as I recall. It could be that every CIA employee is "classified," but that does not mean they are "covert agents." It was particularly incindiary language, and reckless quite frankly, given the effect it has on persons who don't know better. Consider yourself in that group.

One wonders if he had evidence that she was a "covert agent," why we didn't see indictments alleging violations of the IIPA.

Now, stop bothering the grownups.

tico forwards Mary Matalin's talking point.

Is that where I picked that up? My memory is not usually that good.

Did she say "particularly incindiary," or just "incindiary"? I can't recall.

The fall guy Libby is actually not only the Chief of Staff to the Vice-president of the United States, but to the de-facto POTUS. He has been said to be the most influential C of S to the VP ever as well. He is in the loop on everything that goes on in the Oval Office. If we were livining ina democracy,an impeachment inquiry of Bush and Cheney would have already begun.

Text of Patrick Fitzgerald's Statement at Press Conference
Text of Patrick Fitzgerald's Statement at Press Conference
Published: October 28, 2005 5:00 PM ET
WASHINGTON

A text of the statement by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald at Friday's news conference on the CIA leak investigation, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:
---------------------------------------------------------

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And, given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public.

And, as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't.

And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.

But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.

Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And, to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as Wilson's wife, working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of The New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in The New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA - and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short - and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying"; Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true"; Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system.

I would be remiss at this point if I didn't thank the team of investigators and prosecutors who worked on it, led by Agent Eckenrode, or particularly the staff under John Dion from the counterespionage section in the Department of Justice; Mr. (Peter) Zeidenberg from Public Integrity, as well as the agents from the Washington field office and my close friends in the Chicago U.S. attorney's office, all of whom contributed to a joint effort.

hmm...I don't see anyone making the claim that the case is weak. I haven't read the indictment but listening to Fitzgerald laying the case out, it sounds like he has got him.

As Libby is protecting higher-ups, he can't plea out, (unless he is willing to spend time in jail until Bush pardons him) so he must go on to trial. The trouble with that is Cheney and others will be called to testify.

Some day the truth will be known that this was a White House conspiracy to stifle dissent against the war. For the good of the country, it would better for the truth to be known sooner rather than later.

"Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

There is no reasonable disputation that a "blown" cover does not refer to a covert agent and means merely a classified status of a non-covert agent employee of the CIA.

The Libby Indictment

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

p2.
"The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them."

p9.
"Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury)."

"A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA,and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information.'

P5.
"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from. Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.

So, no your remarks are not true now nor were they then. Your questions in August were rebutted both by the decision made by Judge Tate as well as the three member US Appellate Court ruling in the matter of Miller's jailing. Both rulings were made long before your remarks questioning Plame's covert status, and both courts ruled that the issue of her covert status was already decided in the affirmative. Yet, you insisted, dispite two US Federal court rulings that this subject was still subject to legal debate.

In fact, by both federal court rulings, the issue was decided that she was covert as defined. You questioned these decisions precisely because you were attempting to undermine the legality of the actual investigation itself. So, casting as you did the terms of the IIPA was a canard because the Fitzgerald investigation had sufficiently showed to both courts in his ex parti brief that she was covert under the law and decisions those courts made further confirmed this.



No it does not. What you describe is little more than an attempt to insert Jury Nullification of the law used for an indictment under this law. The courts have already decided that Plame was a covert agent. Juries do not decide what the law is, judges do, and four different judges say Plame was covert.



Again, p2.
"The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them."

So no, your statement that "It could be that every CIA employee is classified" is not true. George Tenet's employment as Head of Central Intelligence was not "classified." Nor is the current Head of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss. Nor is the employment status at CIA of countless other employees.



As to this "wondering," only by willful ignorance is one unaware of what Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby stated about this matter.

Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was a covert agent and that her cover was blown.

What Fitzgerald says, by written and spoken word, is that the investigation has uncovered the facts of the case. But he also said, in no uncertain terms, that Libby's repeated obstruction has hampered further efforts to explore the underlying legality of the actions being investigated. He asserted quite clearly that the obstruction in this case has hindered investigative attempts to determine the applicability of statutes to those underlying, already known actions. Fitzgerald did not claim that Libby's obstruction of justice had anything to do with preventing ascetaining whether Plame was a covert agent. She was according to him, and that aforementioned judges who ruled on this.


Here again is the link to the pdf file of the indictment. You should read it before you embarrass yourself further.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf



Now, perhaps you need a refresher back at Law School. It is suspected that you might have slept through some of your classes.

Great post, K.

Checkmate.

My remarks, both then and now, are accurate. Yours, both then and now, are strangely bizzare, and lacking both in common sense and logic. There is absolutely nothing in Fitzgerald's remarks at his press conference, or contained in the indictment, which states that the disclosure of Plame's identity, whether by Libby or anyone else, is a crime -- any crime. I defy you to point to anything that says otherwise.

Libby's indictment refers to the fact that the identities of "certain CIA employees" must be kept secret. The language used is so squishy, that it is uncertain whether he believes Plame even falls within that category of employee. And even if she did, while the indictment expresses an opinion that disclosure of such identities "had the potential to damage the national security," it does not allege ANY crime, nor does it cite ANY statute that may have been violated.

That you are still grasping on to the decision Tate and the Appellate Court in the jailing of Miller as evidence that Plame was a "covert agent" is laughable. The courts DID NOT rule that Plame was a "covert agent" as you assert. I'm still asking for you to show me the quote from the ruling where they made that finding? They made the finding that she was "allegedly covert." It appears that, to you, "allegedly covert" is as good as "actually covert," so long as that finding is made by a federal judge. Your analysis on this issue back in July has not improved with time.



No, what you describe is your complete lack of ability to understand the very basics of American criminal procedure. Besides the fact that the Federal Appellate courts you have referred to above DID NOT decide that Plame was a "covert agent," even if they had, that decision would not be determinative of that material issue in the upcoming trial of any person who might be charged with disclosing Plame's identity -- if that ever occurs. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "jury nullification," and I suggest you reread the definition of that phrase, because it's clear you do not comprehend its meaning.



I never said that every CIA employee is "classified." The point I was making is that even if every CIA employee were "classified," that does not mean every CIA employee is a "covert agent." In other words: "classified" does not equal "covert agent." Really, kuvasz ... these arguments were made months ago. If you didn't get it then, it's obvious you will never get it.



Only a dullard could read the indictment and come away with the belief that "Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was a covert agent and that her cover was blown." He didn't say that, and this is just another example of your propensity to make logical leaps unsupported by facts, and leave huge holes in your theory. You are correct that he said it was Libby's obstruction that hampered his investigation ... but he never said what his investigation uncovered vis-a-vis Plame's status as a "covert agent."



I would prefer that you attend law school. If you would, perhaps you would gain sufficient education and understanding about the law to keep you from making the asinine arguments you have been making regarding this matter.

It's clear you know as much about chess as you do about what we're talking about in this thread.

The argument over Plame's status is irrelevant. Fitzgerald himself said that the outing of Plame significantly damaged national security. The reason Fitz could not bring charges under the IIPA is not due to Plame's status but because Libby's obstruction of justice prevented him from getting to the complete truth.

Well, as I've tried to indicate to you on any number of occasions, there are unfortunate consequences as regards any of us taking you seriously when you substitute honesty and careful thought with cut/paste talking points from your right wing media sources. Matalin's talking point on Fox the night before you wrote those sentences above was that Fitzgerald used "reckless and incendiary language".

Tico,

You wrote

Perhaps you can explain the following and tell me how it shows that Plame wasn't covered by any federal law.

Page 2, section b.



Page 2, section d



Page 3 Section f


The indictment pretty clearly cites the relevent law about revealing classified information and pretty clearly states that Plame's status as a CIA agent was classified.

I admit that I don't know a lot of US law and US crime in specific (wasn't needed when I studied law).

Isn't committing perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury a crime? (Here in Germany, it is: minimum one year prison up to 15 years = the same as e.g. manslaughter.)