8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:51 am
sumac wrote:
Maybe if we say something anti-Bush, posters will come out of the woodwork?

Bush and all of his ilk are a disgrace and source of shame to this country!!!!!!

Bad, bad, people. And so are all other Republicans.

There, do you think that will do it?

Hi, Sumac,
Is this forum open? May I join?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:38 pm
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
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.


I'm sure you can point out the words Fitzgerald uttered which have caused you to reach that conclusion?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:38 pm
blatham wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
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.


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.


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".


I don't expect you to take me seriously Bernie. I don't take you seriously.

I enjoyed the entire Matlin interview. And was nodding and agreeing with just about every word she said. So, lest you think she formed my opinion on the matter, I'm here to tell you she merely reinforced it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:45 pm
parados wrote:
Tico,

You wrote
Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.


Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:
Page 2, section d

Quote:
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.


Another statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:
Page 3 Section f
Quote:
Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.


Again, "classified" does not equal "covert."

Quote:
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.


The indictment goes in circles around the issue. It would have been helpful if it had been succint, if the intent was to say what you claim it does. Did the indicment ever claim that the disclosure of Plame's status as a CIA agent was criminal?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 06:46 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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.)


Yes, it is Walter. That is one of the crimes Libby has been charged with.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:15 pm
Oh well, after dealing with the new puppy's poop today, dealing with the dross and intellectual fecal matter from tico shouldn't be too difficult to deal with......

Ticomaya wrote:
My remarks, both then and now, are accurate. Yours, both then and now, are strangely bizzare, and lacking both in common sense and logic.


Erecting your own alternative reality again, I see. Good for you. I hear that living in a split level head is quite comfortable for some folks.

Btw: For your future reference and scholarship, "strangly bizarre" is a bit redundant, accomplished attorneys at law write better, or would that be gooder?

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


So, you want to hide behind another specious Republican talking point? Again?

Fitzgerald may well believe that Libby deliberately outed a covert agent, but according to a statement he made on Friday, he doesn't feel it matters which statute he convicts on -- any conviction vindicates the public interest.

The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identity of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information.

The Indictment outlines in very clear terms that in fact the Bush Administration did purposefully and concertedly engage in a campaign to make sure the Media knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.

Again, So why no charges of outing a covert agent?

As Fitzgerald said during his press conference:

Quote:
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?

Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray? 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. This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.


Note, Fitzgerald clearly states that "national security was compromised" and "compromising national security information is a very serious matter," but that he can not yet indict on those charges because first he has to determine the state of mind or intent of Libby on this issue.

And you do know how important "intent" is in bringing charges of national security breaches?

What Fitzgerald is saying is that Libby's lies, his obstruction of justice, have prevented Fitzgerald from being able to answer these questions.

Fitzgerald on Friday:

Quote:
"Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true.

If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth."


Does your own understanding of the law lead you to presume that Fitzgerald would indict Libby on the pertinent national security laws without knowing his intent?

If he tried that, Right wingers like you would crucify him for it.

Btw; Perjury is an easier case to prosecute. Jurors understand the concepts better than revealing a covert agent's status. It's a far simpler narrative.

The bottom line is that once the "obstruction" is removed there is a chance that the underlying charges of "blowing the cover" of a CIA agent can be investigated to the full extent.


Ticomaya wrote:
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.


First, one should not be obtuse and admit honestly that Fitzgerald, speaking in third party terms is referring to the covert agent whose blown cover instigated the investigation, viz., Valerie Wilson Plame.

Also, show the rest of the class the citation in the indictment you refer to as "squishy," or that Fitzgerald believes Plame might not fall within the category of CIA employment.

Again for you, Fitzgerald has stated clearly that Libby's obstruction of justice has prevented the former from determining the extent of crime from latter's intentions.

As to any violation of a stated law, perhaps this from the indictment:

P9 from the indictment

Quote:
"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). "


Or perhaps this pp 12-13

Quote:
"In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.


Admittedly, to be clear, the latter citation of the criminal code is not the national security laws referenced above, but as stated now twice, Fitzgerald was not able to assess whether these laws have been broken because Libby lied to the grand jury and Fitzgerald needed to know Libby's intentions in this matter.

As to your own "strangely bizarre" (hehe) remark that:

Quote:
The language used is so squishy, that it is uncertain whether he believes Plame even falls within that category of employee.


Plame's status at CIA? Fitzgerald already addressed it in his indictment, and clearly at that. How you could state your remark with a straight face speaks volumes about the thoroughness of your examination of the facts of this case.

P3 of the indictment
Quote:
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.


You still feel that Fitzgerald was uncertain of Plame's employment at CIA?

Or on page 6, paragraph #13 of the indictment that Libby is well aware he can't talk about Valerie Plame on a non-secure line.

Quote:
"Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."


But of course, with a woman, you would expect her to be a secretary and not a CIA NOC, wouldn't you.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


It's your contention Plame wasn't covert. Fine. You're entitled to your position. But it isn't shared by Fitzgerald or the courts that ruled on sending Judy Miller to jail.

Who is one to believe, the prosecutor who's been staring at this case for a couple of years, the judges that considered the issues in the case? Maybe one should believe Right wingers with blurry talking points and the lies like Victoria Toensing, Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke who insist that Plame was nothing, just a desk jockey?

It might be appalling, but I'll take the words of the courts on the applicable law, unless I have good well-briefed arguments to the contrary.

Conservatives like yourself, who have dwelled on the covert/analyst issue seem to be working from an arcane SPY vs. SPY view of the CIA - her name was available! ergo she couldn't have been a spy, at least in any Robert Ludlum sense. This argument goes to considerable lengths to be willfully stupid.

If the CIA says a secret is a secret, isn't it a secret?

It is doubtful that Judy Miller spent 85 days in jail laughing about the US Appeals Court rejecting as "without merit" the claim in the amicus brief that Plame was "not covert." You must think that they put Miller in jail because the courts decided Plame was not covert. The court cited Branzberg on this and stated that a crime likely had been committed. That likelihood did not revolve around the transfer of information, the leak itself, but the status of the party whose identity was leaked. Miller never would have gone to jail had the courts held that Plame was not a covert agent.

I showed you before the actual citation from the appellate cout's ruling that rejected the claims of the brief on Miller's behalf that stated that Plame was not covert. The court rejected this ploy specifically as without merit. What don't you understand about the English language and Aristotelian logic that confuses you about it? When something is claimed in court and when the courts consider it as without merit it is considered untrue by that court and the contesting analog claim is upheld and is considered true by the court. Viz., Plame was covert.

The fact that each court cited Branzberg in vesting the grand jury with the authority to send Miller to jail was predicated upon the belief that criminal behavior had occurred and that could be consider valid only if Plame was considered covert by the courts. And they arrived at that by examination of the ex parte brief of Fitzgerald relating secret testimony from the CIA on Plame's operational status. Without that, the Appellate Court would not have cited Branzberg to support Tate's decision.

The court does not have to come right out and say "Plame was a covert agent" for that fact to be used in reference to the court decisions.

This is not a matter of me not knowing the law. It is a matter of you not being intellectual honest for pure partisan reasons.

Actually, I'd call yours an increasingly annoying red herring. The covert/not-covert argument is irrelevant in that it's hardly up to you to make such a categorization. The issue is also irrelevant in light of the fact that the CIA's request for an investigation contained very specific reasoning why she was considered covert. And that data was provided to Fitzgerald and to the courts who acting upon it rejected claims that Plame was not covert.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


No, it is you who said that a jury would decide whether or not Plame was covert. The CIA already said she was, there is a paper trail at CIA and the State Dept memo to the White House delineates it too. The federal courts agreed upon an examination of the ex parte brief from Fitzgerald.

More at issue, produce a case in the books where a jury has rejected the government's claims that one of its spies was covert.

The only evidence one could produce in this case has been rejected already by four different judges and the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal on the case, regardless of any merits you proclaim or technicalities, and since the law is what the SCOTUS says it is that court could have taken the case on appeal if they had wished to take it. they didn't. The Appellate ruling stands. Miller went to jail.

Btw: What I actually said was "What you describe is little more than an attempt to insert Jury Nullification" I did not call your theory Jury Nullification itself. But it is close, in affecting judgment. According to you a jury is empowered to override the meaning of "covert" defined in a legislative act, an executive branch definition of the term "covert", and the decisions made by three federal court cases on this topic and throw out the meaning all three branches had decided was germane to the issue. That is about as close to Jury Nullification in affecting a court case as one wishes to get.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


No what you actually said was:

Ticomaya wrote:
"It could be that every CIA employee is "classified," but that does not mean they are "covert agents."


I merely pointed out that your presumption was not true, that all people with CIA employment do not have their status classified, but those are employed at the CIA's Directorate of Operations as covert agents do have their status classified. Even Libby understood this as stated in the Fitzgerald Indictment reference above.

Ticomaya wrote:
In other words: "classified" does not equal "covert agent."


In Plame's case it did.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


Ah, a TOS offense have we? Don't worry, unlike others around here, insulting words have no affect on my delicate disposition.

TOS away big guy if it makes you feel better.

Reference: Fitzgerald's remarks, and try to explain how he is saying anything else than that Plame was an undercover (covert) agent whose identity was revealed.

Quote:
"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

Perhaps you think that an overt agent can have their cover blown?

Perhaps he meant that she had lost her hat in a wind gust?

If, as you contest that Fitzgerald did not imply that Plame was a covert agent at the time her status was revealed, then tell us what did he mean? Describe an alternative and more factual corresponding meaning for what Fitzgerald actually said?

Do it. Occam's Rule rules.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


Sorry, But I chose a more difficult and challenging intellectual pursuit than the mendacious puffery and tomfoolery of a law degree, graduated with both an MS and PhD in chemistry and trained with and am recognized as world-class expert in my field, a field I might add that values intellectual honesty and integrity, quite unlike the training law students receive if such training is a reflection of your postings on-site.

Both of my business partners are attorneys at law, and I have many buddies who are lawyers, but none of them are versed in logic theory or can think their way out of a wet kotex wrapper most of the time. Christ, I even had to write and file my own patents because my "lawyer" partners couldn't understand the patent laws as well as I could. So, so much for the value of a law "degree" for training oneself on the logic system of applying the law.

And I would prefer instead that your clients could see the way you apply your education here on-site. Surely you would lose your livelihood and likely starve if they saw it exhibited with all its vainglorious dungdipping nonsense. But then again, real estate law? Good grief, man you must have quite a time wrestling with some of those zoning laws.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:23 pm
Text of Fitzgerald Press Conference

To searh relevant words, use Control F, also it might be a good idea at this point for anyone commenting to actually read the indictment.



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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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 and 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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."

FITZGERALD: 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.

FITZGERALD: 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 Dial (ph) from the Counterespionage Section in the Department of Justice; Mr. Zidenberg (ph) 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.

And with that, I'll take questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?

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.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.

But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have evidence that the vice president of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie about leaking?

FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment.

Now, let me back up, because I know what that sounds like to people if they're sitting at home.

We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses.

We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.

But as to any person you asked me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything.

Please don't take that as any indication that someone has done something wrong. That's a standard practice. If you followed me in Chicago, I say that a thousand times a year. And we just don't comment on people because we could start telling, "Well, this person did nothing wrong, this person did nothing wrong," and then if we stop commenting, then you'll start jumping to conclusions. So please take no more.

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A, who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?

FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "I'm want to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

And one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."

FITZGERALD: I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know, other than what's charged in the indictment.

It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way.

We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment.

QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.

FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

QUESTION: What can you say about what you're still working on then?

FITZGERALD: I can't. I don't mean that fliply, but the grand jury doesn't give an announcement about what they're doing, what they're looking at, unless they charge an indictment.

FITZGERALD: I can tell you that no one wants this thing to be over as quickly as I do, as quickly as Mr. Eckenrode does. I'd like to wake up in my bed in Chicago, he'd like to wake up in his bed in Philadelphia, and we recognize that we want to get this thing done.

I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation. We hope to do that as soon as possible. I just hope that people will take a deep breath and just allow us to continue to do what we have to do.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, you've said that there was damage done to all of us, damage to the entire nation. Can you be any more specific about what kind of damage you're talking about?

FITZGERALD: The short answer is no. But I can just say this: I'm not going to comment on things beyond what's said in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that when they do their jobs, that information about whether or not they are affiliated with the CIA will be protected.

And they run a risk when they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees.

But getting to the specifics of the damage, I won't.

QUESTION: You mentioned the importance to you of grand jury secrecy and you have been leak-free.

But I want to know what your thoughts are about a series of leaks about your investigation. What was your interpretation of what some people have described as manipulative, selective leaking about your investigation by people close to your witnesses?

FITZGERALD: And all I can say is -- well, I'll just say this: I'm not going to comment on why certain things were leaked or any speculation I might have where was the leak from.

I think the average person does not understand that the rule of grand jury secrecy binds the prosecutors and the grand jury, it binds the agents who come across the grand jury information, it binds the grand jurors. Any one of us could go to jail if we leak that information.

It does not bind witnesses. Witnesses can decide to tell their testimony or not. So if this were a bank robbery and we put a witness in the grand jury about the bank robbery, I would go to jail, he would go to jail, and the grand jurors would go to jail if they walked out and told you about it. But the person who went into the grand jury could walk out and hold a press conference on the front steps.

So they're not breaking the law by discussing their grand jury information. I would prefer for the integrity of the investigation it not be discussed. But I just think people may not understand that certain people are not restricted in talking about grand jury information and certain are.

FITZGERALD: All I can do is make sure that myself and everyone on our team follows those rules.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, you said that it was OK for government officials to be discussing among themselves Mrs. Wilson's identity. Were you troubled, though, that at least a half dozen people outside the CIA seemed to be talking about this in the weeks before her name was disclosed?

FITZGERALD: My job is to investigate whether or not a crime is committed, can be proved and should be charged. I'm not going to comment on what to make beyond that. You know, it's not my jurisdiction, not my job, not my judgment.

QUESTION: I know you just talked about having sand in your eyes when you have the obstruction charge here. Can you give us any sense of how you think you might and how long it might take you now to determine if there was this underlying crime that occurred dealing with alleged unauthorized disclosure?

FITZGERALD: I can't and I wouldn't. And if I predicted two years ago when it started when it would be done, I would have been done a year ago.

FITZGERALD: So all I can tell you is as soon as we can get it done, we will.

QUESTION: You identified Mr. Fleischer as one of the people that Mr. Libby spoke with. Can you say who the counsel to the V.P. was, and also the undersecretary of state that he spoke with?

FITZGERALD: We've referred to people by their titles in the indictment just because that's a practice. We don't allege they did anything wrong. But we said the White House press secretary and we talked about counsel for the vice president. And I generally don't identify people beyond the indictment.

And I'll talk to Randy Samborn, who tells me what I'm allowed to do, at the break.

If we can provide you those names, we will. I'm not so sure we can, so I better not do it in front of a microphone.

QUESTION: In the end, was it worth keeping Judy Miller in jail for 85 days in this case? And can you say how important her testimony was in producing this indictment?

FITZGERALD: Let me just say this: No one wanted to have a dispute with the New York Times or anyone else. We can't talk generally about witnesses. There's much said in the public record.

FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.

I didn't have a vested interest in litigating it. I was not looking for a First Amendment showdown. I also have to say my job was to find out what happened here, make reasoned judgments about what testimony was necessary, and then pursue it.

And we couldn't walk away from that. I could have not have told you a year ago that we think that there may be evidence that a crime is being committed here of obstruction, that there may be a crime behind it and we're just going to walk away from it.

Our job was to find the information responsibly.

We then, when we issued the subpoenas, we thought long and hard before we did that. And I can tell you, there's a lot of reporters whose reporting and contacts have touched upon this case that we never even talked to.

We didn't bluff people. And what we decided to do was to make sure before we subpoenaed any reporter that we really needed that testimony.

In addition to that, we scrubbed it thoroughly within ourselves. And we also, when we went to court, we could have taken the position that it's our decision whether to issued a subpoena, but we made sure that put a detailed, classified, sealed filing before the district court judge, the chief judge -- Hogan -- in the District of Columbia.

FITZGERALD: So we wanted to make sure that if he thought our efforts were off base, if what we were saying -- representing to him was the case was off, that he would have those facts when he made the decision.

Judge Hogan agreed and felt that we met whatever standard there might be for issuing a subpoena.

Then went up to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals with that same filing and they found the same results. And then it went to the Supreme Court.

So I think what we did in seeking that testimony was borne out by how the judges ruled.

At the end of the day, I don't know how you could ever resolve this case, to walk into you a year ago and say, "You know what? Forget the reporters; we have someone telling us that they told Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller that they didn't know if this information were true, they just heard it from other reporters, they didn't even know if he had a wife," and charge a person with perjury only to find out that's what happened, that would be reckless.

FITZGERALD: On the other hand, if we walked away and said, "Well, there are indications that, in fact, this is not how the conversation would happen, there are indications that there might be perjury or obstruction of justice here," but I were to fold up my tent and go home, that would not fulfill our mandate.

I tell you, I will say this: I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely. It should be an extraordinary case.

But if you're dealing with a crime and what's different here is the transaction is between a person and a reporter, they're the eyewitness to the crime; if you walk away from that and don't talk to the eyewitness, you are doing a reckless job of either charging someone with a crime that may not turn out to have been committed -- and that frightens me, because there are things that you can learn from a reporter that would show you the crime wasn't committed.

What if, in fact, the allegations turned out to be true that he said, "Hey, I sourced it to other reporters, I don't know if it's true"?

FITZGERALD: So I think the only way you can do an investigation like this is to hear from all the witnesses.

I wish Ms. Miller spent not a second in jail. I wish we didn't have to spend time arguing very, very important issues and just got down to the brass tacks and made the call of where we were. But I think it had to be done.

QUESTION: You said earlier in your statement here that Mr. Libby was the first person to leak this information outside of the government. Now, first of all, that implies that there might have been other people inside the government who made such leaks.

Secondly, in paragraph 21, the one about "Official A," you imply that Novak might have heard this information about the woman, Mrs. Wilson, from another source. But you don't actually say that.

What can you tell us about the existence that you know of or don't know of or whatever of other leakers? Are there definitely other leakers? Is "Official A" a leaker or just a facilitator? Are you continuing to investigate other possible leakers?

FITZGERALD: I'm afraid I'm going to have to find a polite way of repeating my answer to Mr. Isikoff's question, which is to simply say I can't go beyond the four corners of the indictment. And I'll probably just say -- I'll repeat it so I don't misstep and give you anything more than I should.

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

QUESTION: Would you oppose a congressional investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity? And if not, would you be willing to cooperate with such an investigation by handing over the work product of your investigation?

FITZGERALD: I guess that's two questions, and I know I can answer the second part, turning over the work product.

There are strict rules about grand jury secrecy if there were an investigation. And, frankly, I have to pull the book out and get the people smarter than me about grand jury rules in Chicago and sit down and tell me how it works.

My gut instinct is that we do not -- very, very rarely is grand jury information shared with the Congress.

And I also think I'd have to be careful about what my charter is here. I don't think it's my role to opine on whether the Justice Department would oppose or not oppose some other investigation. So I'm certainly not going to figure that out standing up here with a bunch of cameras pointing at me.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, your critics are charging that you are a partisan who was conducting what, in essence, was a...

(UNKNOWN): In which government (ph)?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: You tell me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) witch hunt. I mean, how do you respond to (inaudible) since you are in Washington...

FITZGERALD: I don't know -- you know, it's sort of, "When'd you stop beating your wife?"

One day I read that I was a Republican hack, another day I read that I was a Democratic hack, and the only thing I did between those two nights was sleep.

I'm not partisan. I'm not registered as part of a party. And I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: You noted earlier that the grand jury's term expired but you said something about holding it open. Or will you be working with a new grand jury?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury, by its terms, can serve -- was an 18-month grand jury. By its statute, to my understanding, can only be extended six months.

FITZGERALD: That six months expired.

It's routine in long investigations that you would have available a new grand jury if you needed to go back to them. And that's nothing unusual. I don't want to raise any expectations by that; that's an ordinary practice.

QUESTION: I think you, kind of, answered this but I assume that you have no plans and don't even think you'd be allowed to issue a final report of any sort.

FITZGERALD: You're correct. But let me explain that.

I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

QUESTION: Isn't it kind of true that Mr. Comey's letter to you makes you in essence almost a de facto attorney general and you can abide or not abide by the CFRs or the regulations as to whether or not to write -- to write a report or not to write a report?

And the follow-up is, every special counsel prior to you has in fact written a report and turned it over to Congress, and they've gotten around the grand jury issue as well.

FITZGERALD: Let me say this. I think any prior special counsel may have been special counsel appointed to -- certain regulations for people outside the Department of Justice, which I do not fit into. I'm not an independent counsel. I may be unique in this sense. I can tell you, I'm very comfortable, very clear that I do not have that authority.

And the extent that I was given sort of the acting attorney general hat for this case, it's the acting attorney general, but the attorney general can't violate the law. And the law on grand jury secrecy is the law.

So I may have a lot of power for this one case in the acting attorney general hat, but I followed the Code of Federal Regulations in this case, and I certainly would follow the law.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, the Republicans previewed some talking points in anticipation of your indictment and they said that if you didn't indict on the underlying crimes and you indicted on things exactly like you did indict -- false statements, perjury, obstruction -- these were, quote/unquote, "technicalities," and that it really was over reaching and excessive.

And since, when and if they make those claims, now that you have indicted, you won't respond, I want to give you an opportunity now to respond to that allegation which they may make. It seems like that's the road they're going down.

FITZGERALD: And I don't know who provided those talking points. I assume...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: I'm not asking -- OK.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: I'll be blunt.

That talking point won't fly. If you're doing a national security investigation, if you're trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven -- because remember there's a presumption of innocence -- but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI, that is a very, very serious matter.

FITZGERALD: And I'd say this: I think people might not understand this. We, as prosecutors and FBI agents, have to deal with false statements, obstruction of justice and perjury all the time. The Department of Justice charges those statutes all the time.

When I was in New York working as a prosecutor, we brought those cases because we realized that the truth is the engine of our judicial system. And if you compromise the truth, the whole process is lost.

In Philadelphia, where Jack works, they prosecute false statements and obstruction of justice.

When I got to Chicago, I knew the people before me had prosecuted false statements, obstruction and perjury cases.

FITZGERALD: And we do it all the time. And if a truck driver pays a bribe or someone else does something where they go into a grand jury afterward and lie about it, they get indicted all the time.

Any notion that anyone might have that there's a different standard for a high official, that this is somehow singling out obstruction of justice and perjury, is upside down.

If these facts are true, if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice and perjury, we might as well just hand in our jobs. Because our jobs, the criminal justice system, is to make sure people tell us the truth. And when it's a high-level official and a very sensitive investigation, it is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

QUESTION: This doesn't relate to the charges, so I'm hoping maybe you can shed some light on this.

In your investigation, have you determined how it was that Ambassador Wilson became the person to be sent to Niger to investigate this situation, how directly involved was his wife in this selection, how much pressure she may have put on officials?

QUESTION: And also I'm wondering about the cooperation you've received from the CIA.

FITZGERALD: I think all government agencies that we have turned to for cooperation have cooperated.

I might have a comment on the circumstances of the trip. I think the only thing that's relevant, frankly, is the belief in the mind of some people that she was involved in the trip or responsible for sending the trip. The dispute as to whether, in fact, she was is irrelevant to the charge before us.

What we're talking about is why -- the investigation was why someone compromised her identity. And the issue in this indictment is whether or not Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally lied about the facts.

And whatever happened in that trip and what role, if any, the wife played is really irrelevant and not our focus.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: What is set forth is a belief on his part that she played a role in the trip, and that is set forth in the indictment.

Whether that belief is 100 percent, 100 percent false, or a mixture of both, is, sort of, irrelevant. But it does set forth in there that he had that belief that she was involved in the trip.

QUESTION: Are you at all concerned that Mr. Libby or his counsel sought to affect or discourage the testimony of Judy Miller by withholding a so-called personal waiver allowing her to testify notwithstanding a pledge of confidentiality or (inaudible) letter to her that she reportedly received when was in jail?

by withholding a so-called personal waiver allowing her to testify notwithstanding a pledge of confidentiality or (inaudible) letter to her that she reportedly received when was in jail?

FITZGERALD: And I'm not going to comment on anything that's not in the indictment, but I can tell you that we're not relying upon anything other than the indictment, which the obstruction of justice charges set forth, the statements by Mr. Libby to the FBI, and the testimony under oath to the grand jury as being the basis of the obstruction charge and nothing else.

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were 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 classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that 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. In trying to figure that out, you need to know what the truth is.

So our allegation is in trying to drill down and find out exactly what we got here, if we received false information, that process is frustrated.

But at the end of the day, I think I want to say one more thing, which is: When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.

It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

FITZGERALD: I think -- but I will say this: The whole point here is that we're going to make fine distinctions and make sure that before we charge someone with a knowing, intentional crime, we want to focus on why they did it, what they knew and what they appreciated; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they knew.

QUESTION: Does that mean you don't feel that you know the truth about whether he intentionally did this and he knew and appreciated it? Or does that mean you are exercising your prosecutorial discretion and being conservative?

FITZGERALD: Well, I don't want to -- look, a person is charged with a crime, they are presumed innocent, and I haven't charged him with any other crime.

And all I'm saying is the harm and the obstruction crime is it shields us from knowing the full truth.

I won't go beyond that.

QUESTION: First, will you actually prosecute this case individually yourself? And, second, have you learned anything about the way the inside of Washington works that surprises you through this investigation?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: The latter, yes.

(LAUGHTER)

And the former, yes and no.

I will be involved in the prosecution.

But if you meant individually, if I will personally participate, yes.

FITZGERALD: If we met individually -- I haven't done this individually. I have a great team from D.C., main Justice, FBI in Chicago and it will be a team effort.

QUESTION: If during the course of the public trial information comes out with regard to other people who have leaked the source of the leak or other people who exposed Ms. Plame's identity, will this then reverberate back to you since you had been studying this, if new information is forthcoming during the course of the trial?

FITZGERALD: If I could answer your question with a bucket of cold water and say, "Let's not read too much into it," any new information that would ever come to light while the investigation is open would be handled by our investigative team concerning these facts.

So if there's there's anything that we haven't learned yet that we learn that should be addressed, we will address it. But I don't want to create any great expectations out there by giving, sort of, a general answer.

QUESTION: Just to be clear -- you did touch on this earlier -- with the grand jury time being done, you have no plans to file another grand jury related to this case at all, is that correct?

FITZGERALD: No. I think what I said is we could use any other grand jury or avail of another grand jury. We couldn't use the grand jurors whose term has expired today any further.

QUESTION: Can you clarify for us, this is not just the word of three reporters versus the vice president's chief of staff? And I ask that in the sense of how it may be difficult to proceed at trial with memories about something that happened long ago.

FITZGERALD: I can't comment on the trial evidence, and I won't tell you the witnesses. I can't. Sorry. The rules are you don't discuss criminal...

QUESTION: But I guess, to put it another way, why are you confident that this is the right thing to do, given that you're dealing with memories of people from something long ago?

FITZGERALD: What I can tell you is a prosecutor is allowed to lay out the charges, and a prosecutor is not allowed to vouch for the charges. And what I'll say is we're comfortable proceeding.

FITZGERALD: But you're right: Let's go to a trial. Let's reserve judgment. And our burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. By indicting him, we're committing to doing that. But he is presumed innocent, and let's let the process play out.

QUESTION: Can you explain in general terms why a subject or witness would be given multiple opportunities to come back before the grand jury? Are there times that you've given the opportunity to set the record straight?

FITZGERALD: I don't want to answer that in this context because I think people will read too much into it. So I'm not going to give a hypothetical answer to something where I think your based upon beliefs that are not hypothetical. Sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

I don't want to comment on generally what happens in grand jury investigations when you're here. After we've just returned an indictment from a particular grand jury investigation, there's no way that people would read my answer as other than commenting on this grand jury investigation. That's what I'm trying to say.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) last minute that you would allow a defense lawyer to come in and see you one more time and to make the case -- it was very curious at the last minute there was considerable FBI activity. Wilson's neighbors were interviewed, witnesses were contacted at the last minute.

QUESTION: What are we supposed to read into that, you were just buttoning up your case, you know, crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s? There was a considerable flurry of activity.

FITZGERALD: I think -- with all respect I think someone interviewed the person who shined my shoes the other day. We've been doing lots of interests, but if suddenly you put a camera on everyone working on the case and follow them when they have coffee and have lunch, anything we do in the ordinary course of business looks like a flurry of activity.

There was a flurry of attention. I won't go beyond that. Look, when we investigate things we're always going out and doing things. I'm not going to do a time line. We obviously wanted to get as much done before October 28th as we could. I would have loved to have finished the case completely by October 28th. This grand jury served long and hard and was very, very attentive. We're grateful for their service.

So I wanted to get as much accomplished before October 28th, but I wouldn't read anything beyond that. I'm not going to comment on any discussions we had with any counsel.

QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.

Does this indictment do that?

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

FITZGERALD: They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just -- it wouldn't be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.

QUESTION: Have you sought any expansion of your authority since February of 2004?

FITZGERALD: No.

I do know there was a letter, and I haven't looked back. There was a clarified letter...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

FITZGERALD: Yes. I think there were two letters in early 2004, and that's it. There's nothing changed since then.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) further issues that you want to look into or anything like that?

FITZGERALD: I'm not looking to expand my authority or mandate and haven't -- I think the second letter is a clarification of the first. Nothing has changed since February 2004 at all.

QUESTION: There's a saying in Washington that it's not the crime, it's the cover up.

Can you just tell us whether if Mr. Libby had testified truthfully, would he be being charged in this crime today?

Also, how do you decide if whether or not to charge Official A?

And also, it's a little hazy I think for many of us -- you say that Valerie Plame's identity was classified, but you're making no statement as to whether she was covert.

QUESTION: Was the leaking of her identity in and of itself a crime?

FITZGERALD: OK. I think you have three questions there. I'm trying to remember them in order. I'll go backwards.

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.

I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes, and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it.

So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.

FITZGERALD: I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

And our commitment on the other end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute.

FITZGERALD: And if we don't prosecute, we keep quiet.

And we're simply saying in here, we didn't get the straight story, and we had to -- had to take action.

(CROSSTALK)

FITZGERALD: I would refer you to Isikoff who took great notes on his question about people not charged, which I cannot answer.

QUESTION: I have four questions.

FITZGERALD: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Now, can you clarify the business question of keeping the grand jury open, which won't be the same grand jury -- I mean, you said you've done the essential bulk of your investigation is finished. Does that mean, in layman's terms, that you're just, kind of, in the mopping up phase, or are there things that you're actively pursuing?

And if so, can you explain to us lay people, bringing this to a grand jury that hasn't been involved for 24 years -- or 24 months -- what does that -- it feels like 24 years -- what does that entail? Do you have to, sort of, start from zero then bring them up to speed?

FITZGERALD: I think it varies on what you need to do, but I just -- you could probably talk to lots of people who don't know the case who could tell you what the general experience is. But if I try to opine on how that happens, there's no way you're not going to look at my answer as telling what's going on with this grand jury investigation, and I can't do that.

QUESTION: Do you feel that Judge Tadall's (ph), Tetogin (ph), other circuit judge's references to evidence of important potential breach of public trust that was carried in your ex parte submissions last year -- do you feel that the charges that you brought now are in line with the submissions you made then and what you said you had potential evidence of?

FITZGERALD: I think there's two questions in that, which I'll say: Is our charge -- does that line up with the secret classified filing? I can't talk about, so I won't comment because I don't want to give you an idea of what's in there.

However, you're asking do these charges vindicate a serious breach of the public trust? Absolutely.

If you're going to have a grand jury investigation into the improper disclosure of national security information and you're going to have someone in the position Mr. Libby is lying to the FBI on two occasions and going before a grand jury on two occasions and telling false testimony and obstructing the investigation, that, to me, defines a serious breach of the public trust.

QUESTION: You had said that the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is completed. A lot of the players, some of the lawyers, some of the people involved (inaudible) through Watergate, through Iran-Contra, through Monica Lewinsky.

Does this case, based on what you know now, remotely compare to the specter of any of those cases?

FITZGERALD: I don't even know how to answer that. I'm just going to take a dive.

(LAUGHTER)

Sorry.

QUESTION: Did you seek any counts that the grand jury did not return?

FITZGERALD: I don't know if I'm allowed to say that.

(LAUGHTER)

Someone gave me a big shake of a head no, that I'm not allowed to say it, so I better not do it.

QUESTION: Can you characterize for us at all the dynamic of the grand jury? Were the members tired? Were they particularly active or involved?

QUESTION: Were they worried that this involves such high-ranking officials? Is there anything you can tell us about that?

FITZGERALD: I can only say this. I can't comment on their emotions or reactions, but I'll say this.

They were a very, very hard-working grand jury, very, very dedicated. And I don't think people fully appreciate how an investigative grand jury can be different.

You know, sometimes you can -- fairly routine to go into a grand jury and say, "Mr. Eckenrode is going to testify about a bank robbery. Here's a picture of the guy with the gun in his hand, with a note. Here's his fingerprint on the note. And here's his confession. You know, how do you vote?"

This grand jury is very, very different.

And what struck me, the one thing that's in the public record, which I hadn't realized would be there, but if you look at the indictment, the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby is charged with perjury in response to a grand juror's question. And it's phrased in there that the grand jury would like to know.

And I just think it shows that the grand jury people take their obligation seriously, they ask questions. And in this country, we have people who probably got notices who thought, "What a pain in the neck this is going to be." And it was a pain in the neck for them for two years, but they worked very, very hard, and if they asked a question and someone lied to them, that was vindicated.

QUESTION: Did Bob Novak cooperate with your investigation?

FITZGERALD: I can't comment.

QUESTION: Anything that would prevent anyone who was a witness from telling of their experience, in grand jury rules, I mean?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury rules limit the prosecutors. They don't limit the witnesses.

I know there's a debate out there from people as to who should say what about what, and I'm not wading into that, other than I have asked people, as a request, not to compromise the investigation by talking. And I'll just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Do you anticipate needing to empanel a new grand jury in order to wrap up?

FITZGERALD: I'm not going to comment.

QUESTION: Do you need a new grand jury? Would you need to empanel a new one if you needed to bring further charges?

FITZGERALD: I can't charge myself, so if we wanted to bring charges we'd need a grand jury to do that. But I don't want to comment beyond that.

Here's what I'm trying to convey: We're not quite done, but I don't want to add to a feverish pitch. It's very, very routine that you keep a grand jury available for what you might need.

And that's all I can say because of the rules of grand jury secrecy, and that's it.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility of anybody else being charged?

FITZGERALD: I'm not going to -- I can't go beyond that. Sorry.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) legal jeopardy right now?

(LAUGHTER)

FITZGERALD: That one -- that didn't get any better.

(LAUGHTER)

You're getting cold, not hot.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You said you couldn't comment outside the four corners of the indictment, but you did make a general statement when you said that all government agencies cooperated.

There were some deferred e-mails that were produced by the White House very late in the investigation that, in fact, in part, triggered the expansion and, earlier, the appointment of the counsel, as I understand.

Do you stand by the statement that all government agencies cooperated? And was the delay of the e-mails inadvertent or purposeful, something you looked at...

FITZGERALD: You built some facts into the question that I'm not going to adopt, and so I'm not going to get into reports in the newspaper that certain things happened, and then if I'm not allowed to confirm it, deny them, build it into a question.

All I'll tell you is I'll stand behind that every agency cooperated with us.

QUESTION: Can you tell just us in laymen's terms -- because I don't know a lot about this -- what is the maximum sentence that Mr. Libby could receive -- that he's charged with all...

FITZGERALD: I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years. The perjury counts and the false statements counts each have a maximum penalty of five years.

FITZGERALD: So there's four five-year counts and one 10-year count.

Now, for a layman, I would step back under these guidelines called the sentencing guidelines that take certain offenses and they are now nonbinding on the federal judges. But they would take into account all sorts of factors about the offense, the circumstances, the person who committed it, if the person were convicted.

And I don't want to jump past -- there's a trial there. But if they were convicted, the judge would look to the sentencing guidelines for guidance as to what actual sentence would be imposed.

So plenty of room, but there's no mandatory minimum. It's zero to 50 years, and that would be a judge's decision.

QUESTION: Does Mr. Libby have any say, now that he has resigned -- and, of course, you brought this indictment today -- to then come to you and say, "Well, this is" -- in other words, break open some of these facts?

And are there ramifications, both at the State Department and DOD, that you're then able to also investigate?

And what has gone on -- to what degree has that shaped the speech that Secretary Powell gave at the United Nations that many people have criticized him for?

FITZGERALD: And I don't think I can answer any of that. I'm not going to speculate what Mr. Libby would do, and I haven't been tracking the ramifications at the various agencies. We've had our hands full.

QUESTION: Just to go back to your comments about the damage that was done by disclosing Valerie Wilson's identify, there are some critics who have suggested that she was not your traditional covert agent in harm's way, that she was working, essentially, a desk job at Langley.

Just to answer those critics, can you elaborate on, aside from the fact that some of her neighbors may now know that she was -- and the country, for that matter -- that she was a CIA officer, what jeopardy, what harm was there by disclosing her identity?

FITZGERALD: I will say this. I won't touch the specific damage assessment of what specific damage was caused by her compromise -- I won't touch that
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 10:29 pm
kuvasz, of course, all they got is a regurgitation of talking points and ad hominems.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 11:07 pm
kuvasz wrote:
Oh well, after dealing with the new puppy's poop today, dealing with the dross and intellectual fecal matter from tico shouldn't be too difficult to deal with......

Ticomaya wrote:
My remarks, both then and now, are accurate. Yours, both then and now, are strangely bizzare, and lacking both in common sense and logic.


Erecting your own alternative reality again, I see. Good for you. I hear that living in a split level head is quite comfortable for some folks.

Btw: For your future reference and scholarship, "strangly bizarre" is a bit redundant, accomplished attorneys at law write better, or would that be gooder?


Actually, I was going for a Robin Williams quote there. I think I meant "richly bizarre." In any case, you make no points because you misspelled "strangely."

kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


So, you want to hide behind another specious Republican talking point? Again?

Fitzgerald may well believe that Libby deliberately outed a covert agent, but according to a statement he made on Friday, he doesn't feel it matters which statute he convicts on -- any conviction vindicates the public interest.

The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identity of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information.

The Indictment outlines in very clear terms that in fact the Bush Administration did purposefully and concertedly engage in a campaign to make sure the Media knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.

Again, So why no charges of outing a covert agent?

As Fitzgerald said during his press conference:

Quote:
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters?

Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray? 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. This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.


Note, Fitzgerald clearly states that "national security was compromised" and "compromising national security information is a very serious matter," but that he can not yet indict on those charges because first he has to determine the state of mind or intent of Libby on this issue.

And you do know how important "intent" is in bringing charges of national security breaches?

What Fitzgerald is saying is that Libby's lies, his obstruction of justice, have prevented Fitzgerald from being able to answer these questions.

Fitzgerald on Friday:

Quote:
"Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true.

If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth."


Does your own understanding of the law lead you to presume that Fitzgerald would indict Libby on the pertinent national security laws without knowing his intent?

If he tried that, Right wingers like you would crucify him for it.

Btw; Perjury is an easier case to prosecute. Jurors understand the concepts better than revealing a covert agent's status. It's a far simpler narrative.

The bottom line is that once the "obstruction" is removed there is a chance that the underlying charges of "blowing the cover" of a CIA agent can be investigated to the full extent.


I note you are unable to point to "anything that says otherwise."


kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


First, one should not be obtuse and admit honestly that Fitzgerald, speaking in third party terms is referring to the covert agent whose blown cover instigated the investigation, viz., Valerie Wilson Plame.

Also, show the rest of the class the citation in the indictment you refer to as "squishy," or that Fitzgerald believes Plame might not fall within the category of CIA employment.

Again for you, Fitzgerald has stated clearly that Libby's obstruction of justice has prevented the former from determining the extent of crime from latter's intentions.

As to any violation of a stated law, perhaps this from the indictment:

P9 from the indictment

Quote:
"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). "


No, nothing there.

Quote:
Or perhaps this pp 12-13

Quote:
"In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

32. It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath:

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.


Admittedly, to be clear, the latter citation of the criminal code is not the national security laws referenced above, but as stated now twice, Fitzgerald was not able to assess whether these laws have been broken because Libby lied to the grand jury and Fitzgerald needed to know Libby's intentions in this matter.


Again, no recitation of any crimes involving the status of Ms. Plame. You do recall that's what we're discussing, don't you.

Quote:
As to your own "strangely bizarre" (hehe) remark that:

Quote:
The language used is so squishy, that it is uncertain whether he believes Plame even falls within that category of employee.


Plame's status at CIA? Fitzgerald already addressed it in his indictment, and clearly at that. How you could state your remark with a straight face speaks volumes about the thoroughness of your examination of the facts of this case.

P3 of the indictment
Quote:
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.


You still feel that Fitzgerald was uncertain of Plame's employment at CIA?

Or on page 6, paragraph #13 of the indictment that Libby is well aware he can't talk about Valerie Plame on a non-secure line.

Quote:
"Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line."


But of course, with a woman, you would expect her to be a secretary and not a CIA NOC, wouldn't you.

Ticomaya wrote:
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.


It's your contention Plame wasn't covert. Fine. You're entitled to your position. But it isn't shared by Fitzgerald or the courts that ruled on sending Judy Miller to jail.


It is NOT my contention that Plame wasn't covert. But you have exhibited such dulled ability to comprehend the written word, it comes as little surprise that you have leapt yet again to a conclusion, wholly unsupported by reality.

Quote:
Who is one to believe, the prosecutor who's been staring at this case for a couple of years, the judges that considered the issues in the case? Maybe one should believe Right wingers with blurry talking points and the lies like Victoria Toensing, Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke who insist that Plame was nothing, just a desk jockey?


Again, the point being that back in July and August, the point I was making is that the issue of whether Plame was a "covert agent" was undetermined. That was true then, and it remains true today, notwithstanding your asinine post ... HERE.

Quote:
Conservatives like yourself, who have dwelled on the covert/analyst issue seem to be working from an arcane SPY vs. SPY view of the CIA - her name was available! ergo she couldn't have been a spy, at least in any Robert Ludlum sense. This argument goes to considerable lengths to be willfully stupid.


That is an incorrect attempt to state my argument. I have questioned whether she is a "covert agent" under the IIPA, because there has been no determination made -- at any level we are aware of -- that she is. There certainly aren't any facts in the public arena that would tend to prove that point.

Quote:
If the CIA says a secret is a secret, isn't it a secret?


It's obviously a secret to the CIA.

Quote:
It is doubtful that Judy Miller spent 85 days in jail laughing about the US Appeals Court rejecting as "without merit" the claim in the amicus brief that Plame was "not covert." You must think that they put Miller in jail because the courts decided Plame was not covert. The court cited Branzberg on this and stated that a crime likely had been committed. That likelihood did not revolve around the transfer of information, the leak itself, but the status of the party whose identity was leaked. Miller never would have gone to jail had the courts held that Plame was not a covert agent.

I showed you before the actual citation from the appellate cout's ruling that rejected the claims of the brief on Miller's behalf that stated that Plame was not covert. The court rejected this ploy specifically as without merit. What don't you understand about the English language and Aristotelian logic that confuses you about it? When something is claimed in court and when the courts consider it as without merit it is considered untrue by that court and the contesting analog claim is upheld and is considered true by the court. Viz., Plame was covert.

The fact that each court cited Branzberg in vesting the grand jury with the authority to send Miller to jail was predicated upon the belief that criminal behavior had occurred and that could be consider valid only if Plame was considered covert by the courts. And they arrived at that by examination of the ex parte brief of Fitzgerald relating secret testimony from the CIA on Plame's operational status. Without that, the Appellate Court would not have cited Branzberg to support Tate's decision.

The court does not have to come right out and say "Plame was a covert agent" for that fact to be used in reference to the court decisions.

This is not a matter of me not knowing the law. It is a matter of you not being intellectual honest for pure partisan reasons.


You only embarrass yourself when you continue to try and claim the "covet agent" issue was decided already by the US Appeals Court. It was not. In fact, I believed kelticwizard agreed with me on this point several months ago. I do not believe you can accuse him of having partisan feelings contrary to your own.

Quote:
Actually, I'd call yours an increasingly annoying red herring. The covert/not-covert argument is irrelevant in that it's hardly up to you to make such a categorization. The issue is also irrelevant in light of the fact that the CIA's request for an investigation contained very specific reasoning why she was considered covert. And that data was provided to Fitzgerald and to the courts who acting upon it rejected claims that Plame was not covert.


This "annoying red herring," as you call it, was brought up by you in the post I linked to above. You have tried to make the spurious claim that "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." Clearly, it is you who were obviously wrong ... yet again.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


No, it is you who said that a jury would decide whether or not Plame was covert. The CIA already said she was, there is a paper trail at CIA and the State Dept memo to the White House delineates it too. The federal courts agreed upon an examination of the ex parte brief from Fitzgerald.


A jury will decide whether or not Plame is a "covert agent" under the IIPA. Whether the CIA has claimed she is or not is immaterial. EVEN IF, as you wrongly claim, the US Appeals court deciding whether Miller should go to jail already decided that Plame was a "covert agent," a jury will still need to decide that issue for itself when and if there are ever any charges brought under the IIPA. Please tell me you are at least understanding of that most basic of legal procedures.

You aren't even going to try and explain away your bizarre "jury nullification" reference?

Quote:
More at issue, produce a case in the books where a jury has rejected the government's claims that one of its spies was covert.


That's so dumb, it's not even worth commenting upon. In any case under the IIPA, whether the CIA is a "covert agent" is a material issue. It is obviously fact specific. You clearly think that if a prosecutor makes an allegation (such as in an indictment), that is sufficient ... Call it a day ... No reason to have a trial ... the issue has been decided. But it doesn't work that way. Juries are the triers of fact. They hear the evidence and argument presented by the prosecution ... they hear the evidence (if any) and argument presented by the defense. They are then charged with determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In the case of a defendant charged with violating the IIPA, the jury would be presented with a definition of "covert agent," and would decide if the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the CIA employee in question satisfies that definition. That is an essential finding that must be made before a conviction can be made.

Quote:
The only evidence one could produce in this case has been rejected already by four different judges and the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal on the case, regardless of any merits you proclaim or technicalities, and since the law is what the SCOTUS says it is that court could have taken the case on appeal if they had wished to take it. they didn't. The Appellate ruling stands. Miller went to jail.


Again, this does not address your instant argument that the press conference or indictment answered the "covert agent" question.

Quote:
Btw: What I actually said was "What you describe is little more than an attempt to insert Jury Nullification" I did not call your theory Jury Nullification itself. But it is close, in affecting judgment. According to you a jury is empowered to override the meaning of "covert" defined in a legislative act, an executive branch definition of the term "covert", and the decisions made by three federal court cases on this topic and throw out the meaning all three branches had decided was germane to the issue. That is about as close to Jury Nullification in affecting a court case as one wishes to get.


Wrong again. I never said or implied that a jury can "override the meaning of 'covert'" defined in the IIPA. The decisions of the federal appeals court would have no bearing on the Jury's deliberations. See above. Jury nullification is not what we're talking about. Try and keep up.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


No what you actually said was:

Ticomaya wrote:
"It could be that every CIA employee is "classified," but that does not mean they are "covert agents."


I merely pointed out that your presumption was not true, that all people with CIA employment do not have their status classified, but those are employed at the CIA's Directorate of Operations as covert agents do have their status classified. Even Libby understood this as stated in the Fitzgerald Indictment reference above.


You have demonstrated, yet again, you lack of comprehension of the written word. If you want to characterize my quoted comment as a "presumption," go right ahead. In other words, it would be accurate to say that what I was saying there was, "If we presume that every CIA employee is 'classified,' ..." I know they are not.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
In other words: "classified" does not equal "covert agent."


In Plame's case it did.


That may or may not be true. But we don't know it's true yet.

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


Ah, a TOS offense have we? Don't worry, unlike others around here, insulting words have no affect on my delicate disposition.

TOS away big guy if it makes you feel better.


Are you saying the shoe fits?

Quote:
Reference: Fitzgerald's remarks, and try to explain how he is saying anything else than that Plame was an undercover (covert) agent whose identity was revealed.

Quote:
"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

Perhaps you think that an overt agent can have their cover blown?

Perhaps he meant that she had lost her hat in a wind gust?

If, as you contest that Fitzgerald did not imply that Plame was a covert agent at the time her status was revealed, then tell us what did he mean? Describe an alternative and more factual corresponding meaning for what Fitzgerald actually said?

Do it. Occam's Rule rules. ?


You sure you didn't mean Occam's Razor?

I'll not try and guess as to what Fitzgerald was trying to say. I'll leave that to you. All I'm saying is he did not say Plame was a "covert agent" as that term is defined in the IIPA. Nor did he make any allegation that any violation of the IIPA has occured ... which seems to be what you are claiming he did.

Plame may well have been "under cover." That does not make her a "covert agent." Try rereading that definition. Maybe that is where your confusion lies.

If I happen to learn your real name, and post it here on A2K, I would -- in effect -- blow your cover. Are you a "covert agent"?

kuvasz wrote:
Both of my business partners are attorneys at law, and I have many buddies who are lawyers, but none of them are versed in logic theory or can think their way out of a wet kotex wrapper most of the time.


I see why you were drawn to them. Bird of a feather ....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 11:09 pm
Whadda ya know. Chrissee made a post longer than kuvasz usually makes.

That's hard to do.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 11:27 pm
For an insight to the Big Picture, Frank Rich of the New York Times writes, courtesy of truthout.org

Quote:









One Step Closer to the Big Enchilada
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 30 October 2005

To believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us anytime soon you'd have to believe that the Nixon-Agnew scandals peaked when G. Gordon Liddy and his bumbling band were nailed for the Watergate break-in. But Watergate played out for nearly two years after the gang that burglarized Democratic headquarters was indicted by a federal grand jury; it even dragged on for more than a year after Nixon took "responsibility" for the scandal, sacrificed his two top aides and weathered the indictments of two first-term cabinet members. In those ensuing months, America would come to see that the original petty crime was merely the leading edge of thematically related but wildly disparate abuses of power that Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, would name "the White House horrors."

In our current imperial presidency, as in its antecedent, what may look like a narrow case involving a second banana with a child's name contains the DNA of the White House, and that DNA offers a road map to the duplicitous culture of the whole. The coming prosecution of Lewis (Scooter) Libby in the Wilson affair is hardly the end of the story. That "Cheney's Cheney," as Mr. Libby is known, would allegedly go to such lengths to obscure his role in punishing a man who challenged the administration's W.M.D. propaganda is just one very big window into the genesis of the smoke screen (or, more accurately, mushroom cloud) that the White House used to sell the war in Iraq.

After the heat of last week's drama, we can forget just how effective the administration's cover-up of that con job had been until very recently. Before Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation, there were two separate official investigations into the failure of prewar intelligence. With great fanfare and to great acclaim, both found that our information about Saddam's W.M.D.'s was dead wrong. But wittingly or unwittingly, both of these supposedly thorough inquiries actually protected the White House by avoiding, in Watergate lingo, "the big enchilada."

The 601-page report from the special presidential commission led by Laurence Silberman and Charles Robb, hailed at its March release as a "sharp critique" by Mr. Bush, contains only a passing mention of Dick Cheney. It has no mention whatsoever of Mr. Libby or Karl Rove or their semicovert propaganda operation (the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG) created to push all that dead-wrong intel. Nor does it mention Douglas Feith, the first-term under secretary of defense for policy, whose rogue intelligence operation in the Pentagon supplied the vice president with the disinformation that bamboozled the nation.

The other investigation into prewar intelligence, by the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a scandal in its own right. After the release of its initial findings in July 2004, the committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts, promised that a Phase 2 to determine whether the White House had misled the public would arrive after the presidential election. It still hasn't, and no wonder: Murray Waas reported Thursday in The National Journal that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby had refused to provide the committee with "crucial documents," including the Libby-written passages in early drafts of Colin Powell's notorious presentation of W.M.D. "evidence" to the U.N. on the eve of war.

Along the way, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation has prompted the revelation of much of what these previous investigations left out. But even so, the trigger for the Wilson affair - the administration's fierce effort to protect its hype of Saddam's uranium - is only one piece of the larger puzzle of post- and pre-9/11 White House subterfuge. We're a long way from putting together the full history of a self-described "war presidency" that bungled the war in Iraq and, in doing so, may be losing the war against radical Islamic terrorism as well.

There are many other mysteries to be cracked, from the catastrophic, almost willful failure of the Pentagon to plan for the occupation of Iraq to the utter ineptitude of the huge and costly Department of Homeland Security that was revealed in all its bankruptcy by Katrina. There are countless riddles, large and small. Why have the official reports on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo spared all but a single officer in the chain of command? Why does Halliburton continue to receive lucrative government contracts even after it's been the focus of multiple federal inquiries into accusations of bid-rigging, overcharging and fraud? Why did it take five weeks for Pat Tillman's parents to be told that their son had been killed by friendly fire, and who ordered up the fake story of his death that was sold relentlessly on TV before then?

These questions are just a representative sampling. It won't be easy to get honest answers because this administration, like Nixon's, practices obsessive secrecy even as it erects an alternative reality built on spin and outright lies.

Mr. Cheney is a particularly shameless master of these black arts. Long before he played semantics on "Meet the Press" with his knowledge of Joseph Wilson in the leak case, he repeatedly fictionalized crucial matters of national security. As far back as May 8, 2001, he appeared on CNN to promote his new assignment, announced that day by Mr. Bush, to direct a governmentwide review of U.S. "consequence management" in the event of a terrorist attack. As we would learn only in the recriminatory aftermath of 9/11 (from Barton Gellman of The Washington Post), Mr. Cheney never did so.

That stunt was a preview of Mr. Cheney's unreliable pronouncements about the war, from his early prediction that American troops would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq to this summer's declaration that the insurgency was in its "last throes." Even before he began inflating Saddam's nuclear capabilities, he went on "Meet the Press" in December 2001 to peddle the notion that "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When the Atta-Saddam link was disproved later, Gloria Borger, interviewing the vice president on CNBC, confronted him about his earlier claim, and Mr. Cheney told her three times that he had never said it had been "pretty well confirmed." When a man thinks he can get away with denying his own words even though there are millions of witnesses and a video record, he clearly believes he can get away with murder.

Mr. Bush is only slightly less brazen. His own false claims about Iraq's W.M.D.'s ("We found the weapons of mass destruction," he said in May 2003) are, if anything, exceeded by his repeated boasts of capturing various bin Laden and Zarqawi deputies and beating back Al Qaeda. His speech this month announcing the foiling of 10 Qaeda plots is typical; as USA Today reported last week, at least 6 of the 10 on the president's list "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out." In June, Mr. Bush stood beside his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, and similarly claimed that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. A Washington Post investigation found that only 39 of those convictions had involved terrorism or national security (as opposed to, say, immigration violations). That sum could yet be exceeded by the combined number of convictions in the Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandals.

The hyping of post-9/11 threats indeed reflects the same DNA as the hyping of Saddam's uranium: in both cases, national security scares are trumpeted to advance the White House's political goals. Keith Olbermann of MSNBC recently compiled 13 "coincidences" in which "a political downturn for the administration," from revelations of ignored pre-9/11 terror warnings to fresh news of detainee abuses, is "followed by a 'terror event' - a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." To switch the national subject from the fallout of the televised testimony of the F.B.I. whistle-blower Coleen Rowley in 2002, John Ashcroft went so far as to broadcast a frantic announcement, via satellite from Russia, that the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot" to explode a dirty bomb. What he was actually referring to was the arrest of a single suspect, Jose Padilla, for allegedly exploring such a plan - an arrest that had taken place a month earlier.

For now, it's conventional wisdom in Washington that the Bush White House's infractions are nowhere near those of the Nixon administration, as David Gergen put it on MSNBC on Friday morning. But Watergate's dirty tricks were mainly prompted by the ruthless desire to crush the political competition at any cost. That's a powerful element in the Bush scandals, too, but this administration has upped the ante by playing dirty tricks with war. Back on July 6, 2003, when the American casualty toll in Iraq stood at 169 and Mr. Wilson had just published his fateful Op-Ed, Robert Novak, yet to write his column outing Mr. Wilson's wife, declared that "weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger" were "little elitist issues that don't bother most of the people." That's what Nixon administration defenders first said about the "third-rate burglary" at Watergate, too.


Parsing words about whether or not Plame was covert, "how covert" and all the other bullshit talking points is not gonna save Libby or this administration.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:26 am
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:30 am
yada yada yada, yawn--won't work
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:31 am
At his press conference, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 10:36 am
At his press conference, Patrick Fitzgerald said:

Quote:
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.

FITZGERALD: 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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:10 am
BS argument, Tico; just because the IIPA act wasn't violated doesn't mean that national security wasn't breached.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:16 am
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Tico,

You wrote
Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.


Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:
Page 2, section d

Quote:
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.


Another statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:
Page 3 Section f
Quote:
Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.


Again, "classified" does not equal "covert."

Quote:
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.


The indictment goes in circles around the issue. It would have been helpful if it had been succint, if the intent was to say what you claim it does. Did the indicment ever claim that the disclosure of Plame's status as a CIA agent was criminal?


Classified is classified is classified. How much of a dullard do you have to be to ask how "classified" applies to Plame when I quote the part that Fitzgerald clearly stated it DOES apply to Plame.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:20 am
Quote:
The question now: why an effort to thwart investigation?
Analysts offer explanations for Libby's alleged misdeeds.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began his investigation in December 2003, his instructions were to identify who leaked the name of a CIA agent to columnist Robert Novak and determine whether that action violated any secrecy laws.

Nearly two years later, the answer to that question appears to be that no secrecy laws were clearly and intentionally violated. But along the way to attempting to discover the truth about the original leak, Mr. Fitzgerald encountered a senior White House official who he says attempted to obstruct his investigation.

Now, with the prospect of a long-drawn-out and politically charged trial in Washington, a new question emerges: Why would I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, take the extraordinary risk of going to prison to thwart a special counsel's investigation?

"There is an innocent explanation and a nefarious explanation," says Paul Rothstein, a law professor at Georgetown University.

The nefarious explanation is that Mr. Libby and other White House insiders intentionally leaked the identity of a CIA agent to place her in danger to punish her husband for his public criticism of the administration's Iraq policies, Professor Rothstein says. Under this theory, Libby's alleged misstatements to FBI agents and the grand jury were designed to prevent investigators from learning who else at the White House was involved in what would amount to a criminal conspiracy to disclose national security secrets to discredit an administration critic.

The more innocent explanation is that Libby's alleged misstatements "assuming they were intentional" were aimed at heading off political embarrassment, rather than covering up criminality at the White House. "He knew it would be embarrassing politically if the government even accidentally and innocently was the source of [the leak of the agent's name]," Rothstein says.

Many are likely to embrace the nefarious explanation, Rothstein says, but the actions of the special counsel in declining to charge anyone with illegally disclosing secrets suggest the innocent explanation may be closer to the truth.

"This will all come out in the trial," Rothstein says.

Joseph diGenova, a Washington lawyer and former US attorney, says one of the first battles defense attorneys are likely to wage is to attempt to purge the indictment of any references to classified information.

"There is going to be a ferocious battle over the contours of what the jury actually gets to hear in this case," he says.

The five-count indictment against Libby charges that he lied to investigators and the grand jury about how he learned the identity and employment of the CIA agent whose name was leaked to the press. Libby said he learned that information from reporters. Mr. Fitzgerald said his investigation showed that Libby had learned those facts much earlier from individuals within the government.

While the indictment discusses the importance of classified information and keeping secrets, the prosecutor did not charge Libby with violating any laws related to classified information. Specifically, he was not charged with knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence agent, nor was he charged with illegal disclosure of national defense information.

Instead, the indictment charges him with being less than truthful during the subsequent investigation into the leaks.

"The prosecutor is trying to have it both ways. He can't prove a violation [of national security] but he's trying to allege one," Mr. diGenova says.

"A trial judge is going to balance that and could very well strike that language [dealing with classified information]," he says. "When [Special Counsel Fitzgerald] loses that language, he loses all kinds of power in the charging document."

DiGenova adds that if the trial judge allows the references to classified information to remain in the indictment, defense lawyers will probably attack the CIA itself for failing to take the necessary measures to protect its own agent.

It was the CIA that enlisted the agent's husband, Joseph Wilson, for the sensitive mission in Africa, and it was the CIA that permitted Mr. Wilson to publicly disclose his role and publicly criticize the White House in an op-ed piece in The New York Times, diGenova says. In effect, the CIA set the stage through sloppy tradecraft for the disclosure of one of its agents.


Witnesses will also play a key role at the trial, analysts say.

"You never know how a jury is going to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses," says Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University and a former federal prosecutor. The central witnesses in Libby's case will probably be news reporters, who may appear reluctantly on the stand or who may demonstrate sympathy toward their former source.

"The prosecutor has one point of view [of the case], the witnesses may have a different point of view," Professor Butler says.

DiGenova says perhaps Libby's best defense will be the simplest defense, that he had no intention of lying.

"There were many conversations over a long period of time involving many people," he says. "There may be one or two jurors who themselves from time to time have bad memories and say, there but for the grace of God go I."

He adds, "It only takes one person to hang a jury."

Rothstein says the Libby case raises questions about the fairness of appointing a special counsel to engage in open-ended investigations that involve political officials in Washington.

He says political officials are under a different set of pressures than most other Americans faced with a criminal investigation. "Because they are afraid of political embarrassment for their bosses or their party, or themselves, or out of loyalty, they can't do what normal people would do in this situation and simply take the Fifth - plead the privilege against self incrimination and not answer," Rothstein says.

"In the political arena that is definitely not acceptable. They take a big political hit for that, so they lie," he says.

Rothstein says to avoid this kind of trap, special prosecutors should use their prosecutorial discretion not to file coverup charges when there is no evidence related to the alleged underlying crime that gave rise to the investigation.

The same issue arose in the investigation of President Bill Clinton and in the Iran-contra affair, he says.

"I don't mean to minimize the crime of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice. Prosecutors need these tools," he says. But Rothstein says it is the underlying allegation that should be the focus of the special prosecutor.

"When the government begins to retaliate against critics, that is the end of free speech. That is the government with all its power and force acting like a dictator repressing dissent," he says. "If that is what was happening, that is terrible and it would show that these people are petty and mean-spirited."

He adds, "But so far, nobody has been able to make a case - not even the prosecutor - that that is what really was going on."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:26 am
Another BS argument, Tico, sheesh; the Obstruction of Justice charge specifically refers to the fact that one cannot prove other charges because of lies that were told to the Grand Jury. The lies impede the investigation, so, those have to be cleared up before they can move on.

It is likely that if Libby had told the truth, there would have been other charges files; and will be...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 11:45 am
You are obtuse on purpose again by insisting that the only pertinent factor in this investigation of a covert CIA agent being outed is an indictment on Plame's cover being blown. You blithely ignored everything Fitzgerald said about the indictment of Libby on how the Special Counsel has found a widespread campaign at the highest levels of government to reveal her identity to the press, and that he has been prevented from determining what law to apply to Libby, and potentially, other leakers . As an attorney you know that this is just Fitzgerald's opening gambit to find out what really happened.

In fact, Fitzgerald said that his indictments were not the end of the investigation. You are dancing in the end-zone in the third quarter thinking your side has won the game. But this investigation can not be considered as a contest to win but a search for the truth of what happened that caused White House officials to blow the cover of an American spy who was intimately involved in defending the nation from nuclear attacks.

I hear no one arguing over the factual basis of the time-line of the leaking campaign by the White House, except for Libby. No one else is contesting what Fitzgerald has presented as factual in this matter. The time-line shows that those vested with the task of defending us have used their power for purely political purposes to the determent of the security of the nation.

You insist that without an indictment on the disclosure of Plame's covert job at CIA means that there is no problem, no harm, no foul. Even as Fitzgerald states clearly that national security was harmed, you chortle on that since it brings no political harm to your politics, then it is okay. By this, you are in concord with those who have been willing to sacrifice the security of this nation on the altar of their personal politics.

On the issue of the courts deciding that the spurious claims that Plame was a not a covert agent are without merit you are advancing a baseless claim. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative by Bush administration officials is not merely a probe into whether the disclosure violated the IIPA, and if the conditions are not met, then no crime has been committed.

As Victoria Toewnsling and other right wing hacks have on distorting the authority of Fitzgerald's investigation you are attempting to narrow its scope to an investigation of if a single law has been broken.

Fitzgerald's mission is not conditioned or restricted in any such manner.

Quote:
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Patrick:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General



http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

Your insistence that the Special Counsel and courts have not determined the state of Plame's covert status with respect to the IIPC guidelines is merely a misdirection in this affair. Plame's classified, covert status is not in question according to the overarching mission and plenary powers of Fitzgerald's authority to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's employment with the CIA. Fitzgerald is authorized to investigate the disclosure under any law relating to this, not only the IIPC. Narrowing as you have the subject of the pertinent laws with respect to this investigation only to the IIPC is fallacious. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to demand the application of the terms of a law that is difficult to enforce in effort to avoid legal retribution. The Special Counsel is not under any such mandate to do so.

The federal courts did not decide their cases upon the requirements of the IIPC but on broader legal issues. When you say that the courts did not address the issue of Plame's covert status according to IIPC guidelines, who said that they did or had to? I didn't. I said that they rejected the claim that Plame was not covert and for the intents of the broader terms of the Fitzgerald investigation the courts have decided that her status was classified and covert.

The amicus brief filed by Toewnsling on behalf of Miller attempted directly to short circuit the investigation by forcing the courts to apply the guidelines of the IIPC on the covert status of spies to the investigatory powers of Fitzgerald and the grand jury. This was merely a ploy to force the courts to apply the strictest guidelines to Plame's covert status at CIA.

The courts rejected this ploy, and Fitzgerald stated that in the indictment of Libby the laws pertinent to his mission include statutes other than the IIPC on national security matters.

Espionage Act of 1917

Quote:
Title 18, Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense 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, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the
national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to
be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall
forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of
State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign
government, or any faction or party or military or naval force
within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the
United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes
of this subsection, the term ''State'' includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the
defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p)
of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall
apply to -
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts
from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by
law.



The Reagan Administration used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute Samuel Morrison in 1984, and there Morrison merely leaked photos of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that even if a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.


Quote:
Title 18, section 371:

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.


Fitzgerald has already mentioned that there was a concerted effort to reveal Plame's classified employment to the media.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." Would telephoning or meeting with reporters to reveal a covert CIA asset whose identity would be compromised fit this description? Highly likely.



Quote:
Title 18 Section 641.

Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any
property made or being made under contract for the United States or
any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.
The word ''value'' means face, par, or market value, or cost
price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.




Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent

Most relevant for this situation, Jonathan Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641

This law prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it was used in the Randel case to cover just such leaks.
Libby, et. al. may be able to claim that they did not know they were leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question they did not understand that what they were leaking was "sensitive information." The fact is Karl Rove called it "double super secret background" when describing it to Matt Cooper and suggests clearly that Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (that by definition is sensitive).

The District Court Judge's statement to Jonathan Randel, who was imprisoned for two years because of being found guilty under this statute: "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. The judge concluded the leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

The risk posed by the information Libby and Rove leaked is multiplied many times over. It occurred at a time when the nation was at war over weapons of mass destruction. And Libby and Rove were risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert in Valerie Plame.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 01:03:31