Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

The wheels of justice move slowly, especially when those in charge are stonewalling and stalling so everyone can be pardoned.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Just a quick question: Other than news there may be these "black prisons", has any evidence surfaced that they actually exist? I have not read or seen any evidence proving they actually exist. Any one?

Former Romanian defense minister Ioan Mihai Pascu has acknowledged that US planes carrying detainees may have refueled in the country, but has denied the existence of a secret CIA-run prison there.

His comments, published Saturday in Evenimentul Zileli [media website, English version] are the first by a senior Romanian official with access to military information that appear to confirm press reports and subsequent contentions [HRW press release] by Human Rights Watch about secret CIA flights and the existence of possible "black" detention centers in Poland and Romania.

AP: Romanian: Detainees May Have Stopped Over

Meanwhile, British members of parliament will begin hearing testimony Monday about CIA flights through UK airports; Spain is already conducting a similar investigation.

UN officials and human rights lawyers have warned that the failure to intercept such flights could breach the UN Convention against Torture.

0 Replies

Walter, Good to see this administration isn't getting any "free rides" from the bravest of countries willing to challenge Bushco. HURRAY!

0 Replies

Chicago Tribune- Sunday Nov. 20th 2005- Headline- RICE DENIES LEAKING NAME TO WOODWARD.

quote from the story:

"The revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earlier portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government officialt to leak Plame's identity to reporters."

It would appear that there are key facts that Fitxgerald does not know.

Anyone who thinks that LIbby's lawyer wont JUMP ON THIS ITEM, knows nothing about White Collar Legal defenders.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Chicago Tribune- Sunday Nov. 20th 2005- Headline- RICE DENIES LEAKING NAME TO WOODWARD.
quote from the story:
"The revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earlier portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government officialt to leak Plame's identity to reporters."
It would appear that there are key facts that Fitxgerald does not know.
Anyone who thinks that LIbby's lawyer wont JUMP ON THIS ITEM, knows nothing about White Collar Legal defenders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interesting complication is that Stephen Hadley worked for Condi Rice at the time of the incident. Is she ignorant of her subordinate's activities?---BBB

Rice denies leaking name to Woodward
From Tribune news services
Published November 20, 2005
WASHINGTON

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is not the source who told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post in June 2003 that the wife of former diplomat Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA, the State Department spokesman said Saturday.

Rice, who was traveling in Asia with President Bush, said she was not Woodward's source, said the spokesman, Sean McCormack. Rice was responding to an article about the CIA leak case in The New York Times on Saturday saying she had been one of a handful of officials who had declined to comment on the case.

Last week, Woodward disclosed that a confidential source told him in June 2003 that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA, and that he had given sworn testimony Monday to a grand jury investigating the leak. Afterward, more than a dozen top Bush administration officials directly or indirectly denied telling Woodward of Plame's role.

The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, last month indicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, on perjury and other charges related to the disclosure.

Woodward has said the source was someone other than Libby, the only person indicted in the federal probe.

Rice was Bush's national security adviser in June 2003, when Woodward says a highly placed official told him of Plame's CIA connection. Rice took over from Colin Powell as the nation's top diplomat in January.

The revelations from Woodward contradict Fitzgerald's earlier portrayal of Libby as the first government official to leak Plame's identity to reporters. Plame was revealed as a CIA officer in July 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, eight days after her husband accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney based in Chicago, is continuing his investigation and will present additional evidence to another grand jury, according to court papers filed Friday.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Chicago Tribune- Sunday Nov. 20th 2005- Headline- RICE DENIES LEAKING NAME TO WOODWARD.

quote from the story:

"The revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earlier portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government officialt to leak Plame's identity to reporters."

It would appear that there are key facts that Fitxgerald does not know.

Anyone who thinks that LIbby's lawyer wont JUMP ON THIS ITEM, knows nothing about White Collar Legal defenders.

Libby isn't charged with being the first. He is charged with lying about who he talked to concerning Plame and when. The evidence of who Libby talked to and when he talked to them doesn't change one whit because Woodward talked to someone else about Plame. Go look at the timeline. Woodward could not have been Libby's source since Libby didn't talk to Woodward until after he had talked to others.

0 Replies

'Post' Ombuds, Past and Present, Say Woodward Needs Watching
'Post' Ombuds, Past and Present, Say Woodward Needs Watching
By E&P Staff
Published: November 20, 2005
NEW YORK

In a highly critical Sunday column, Deborah Howell, ombudsman at the Washington Post since just October, took the paper's star reporter to task for his behavior surrounding the Plame/CIA leak, accusing him of what she termed two journalistic "sins." She wrote that the Post "took a hit to its credibility with readers," and "disappointment was rife in The Post's newsroom."

Her conclusion: "He has to operate under the rules that govern the rest of the staff--even if he's rich and famous."

Also Sunday, on Howard Kurtz's "Reliable Sources" show on CNN, former 'Post' ombud Geneva Overholser also rapped Woodward.

Earlier this week, Howell had told E&P's Joe Strupp that her reader mail was uniformly negative about Woodward, which is rare on any subject. Today she noted that many readers think Woodward ought to be fired or disciplined.

"Last week we found out that he kept the kind of information from Downie that is a deeply serious sin not to disclose to a boss -- the kind that can get even a very good reporter in the doghouse for a long time," Howell wrote. "He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and 'Larry King Live' about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge of Plame's identity.

"The Post's story Wednesday put the paper in a terrible light. Woodward refused to answer Post reporters' questions beyond a prepared statement about his deposition to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald -- even questions unrelated to his pledge of confidentiality to his source in the Plame case....

"Even admirers of Woodward in the newsroom wish he had done the right thing in the first place." Dan Balz, who has collaborated with Woodward, said he was "totally stunned" by Woodward's disclosure.

She asked Woodward if his source was the same as Robert Novak's. He answered, "That is a good question. I wish I could answer it." He added, "when it all comes out" readers will understand a lot more.

Howell said that Woodward obviously needs "more oversight" and suggested the Post assign a "top-line editor" to watch over him more closely.

On the Kurtz CNN program, a panel that included former presidential adviser David Gergen and ex-Post ombudsman Geneva Overhlolser also criticized Woodward. now a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and an editor-at- large at "U.S. News & World Report."

Gergen called Woodward's failure to notify Downie about his involvement a "big" mistake, but also defended his overall record.

Overholser, who had "tangled" with Woodward over anonymous sources when she was at the paper, according to Kurtz, said, "I honestly believe he does play by a different set of rules. And I think that that's quite problematic.

"What we've seen here, Howie, plays right into public concerns about whether or not reporters are mostly focused on serving the public's need to know, or cozying up with sources. And Woodward is doing now a very different thing from what he did in Watergate.

"Where he was the quintessential outsider reporting on people in power and using anonymous sources to do so, now he's the quintessential insider, giving voice to those in power. And also using anonymity, but in a very different interest....

"I don't think that what Woodward is primarily focusing on now in his books is not useful. I think it's very useful. But I think it is a different thing from daily journalism and the public interest, which is to present a full an fair and balanced report, and I think the problem here is that he really is mostly serving books. And it's problematic for him to be at The Post."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff ([email protected])

0 Replies

Of course, Parados. I read the indictment. Libby's problem, if he has one, is possible perjury. You do know what perjury is, don't you, Parados? It is what Clinton committed repeatedly.

Clinton was not indicted.

Will Libby be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when Libby's lawyer can and WILL show that Fitzgerald declared that "the revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earliest portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government official to leak Plame's identity to reporters."

Again, Parados, I know what Libby has been charged with. I also know what Fitzgerald claimed( see above) I also know that Libby's lawyers will use the fact that Fitzgerald stated an untruth. Fitzgerald obviously did not know about Woodward and Woodward's source.

If you think that Libby's lawyer will not suggest that there may be a great deal more that Fitzgerald did not know, you know NOTHING about the operation of a top flight white collar defense lawyer,

Will the perjury charge stick? Probably. But it didn't stick in Clinton's case and his lying was egregious and repeated.

0 Replies

Jeez man - can you get off Clinton for one thread?
The issue is Libby's lying.

0 Replies

Mortkat
Libby was not indicted for outing a CIA agent but for committing perjury. Lying to the grand jury under oath. Of that there is much corroboration. In that they have him by the short hairs.
IMO opinion the Vice president of torture, Cheney, set the ball in motion and is the chief conspirator.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Of course, Parados. I read the indictment. Libby's problem, if he has one, is possible perjury. You do know what perjury is, don't you, Parados? It is what Clinton committed repeatedly.

Clinton was not indicted.

No, but he was impeached. The process resembles a grand jury inquest, conducted by the House, followed by a full-blown trial, conducted by the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding

Will Libby be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when Libby's lawyer can and WILL show that Fitzgerald declared that "the revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earliest portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government official to leak Plame's identity to reporters."

Well, that is not actually what Fitzgerald said now is it? But of course, you knew that already, didn't you? Fitzgerald said "first KNOWN government official." That gives the statement quite a different meaning than you would have one believe.

Again, Parados, I know what Libby has been charged with. I also know what Fitzgerald claimed( see above) I also know that Libby's lawyers will use the fact that Fitzgerald stated an untruth. Fitzgerald obviously did not know about Woodward and Woodward's source.

No, Fitzgerald's statment was operative at the time, and was correspondant with the truth, since no federal investigator KNEW about Woodward's knowledge.

If you think that Libby's lawyer will not suggest that there may be a great deal more that Fitzgerald did not know, you know NOTHING about the operation of a top flight white collar defense lawyer.

Irving Libby's lawyers can also suggest that Fitzerald does not know pi to the 100th decimal either, but the only revelant factors are whether anything fitzgerald does not know will support Libby's version of events versus the sworn testimony of seven other people and several government documents that indicate that Libby lied.

Will the perjury charge stick? Probably. But it didn't stick in Clinton's case and his lying was egregious and repeated.

0 Replies

'First Known' is different from 'first'. The word 'known' is a proviso for to the extent of our knowledge. He may or may not be the first but so far we think he is the first.

0 Replies

We shall see what happens to Mr. Libby.In the meantime, it is instructive to consider the crime of perjury. It is narrowly defined in federal law. A false statement under oath is not enough. The statement must be deliberately false, that is, a lie, it must be MATERIAL to some issue in the proceeding in which it is made; and it must be false rather than merely misleading.

The recent cases involving OJ Simpson and Robert Blake show the difficulty of finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While both went free in criminal trials where guilt must be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, they were both found guilty in civil trials where only the Preponderance of the Evidence is necessary.

Now, kuvasz makes some telling points. So telling that I am leaning towards cancelling my subscription to the Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Tribune published an article headlined RICE DENIES LEAKING NAME TO WOODWARD.

In that article, a paragraph reads:

quote--

'The revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earlier portrait of Libby as THE FIRST GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL TO LEAK PLAME'S IDENTITY TO REPORTERS"

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

We shall see what happens to Mr. Libby.In the meantime, it is instructive to consider the crime of perjury. It is narrowly defined in federal law. A false statement under oath is not enough. The statement must be deliberately false, that is, a lie, it must be MATERIAL to some issue in the proceeding in which it is made; and it must be false rather than merely misleading.

The recent cases involving OJ Simpson and Robert Blake show the difficulty of finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While both went free in criminal trials where guilt must be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, they were both found guilty in civil trials where only the Preponderance of the Evidence is necessary.

Now, kuvasz makes some telling points. So telling that I am leaning towards cancelling my subscription to the Chicago Tribune.

The Chicago Tribune published an article headlined RICE DENIES LEAKING NAME TO WOODWARD.

In that article, a paragraph reads:

quote--

'The revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earlier portrait of Libby as THE FIRST GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL TO LEAK PLAME'S IDENTITY TO REPORTERS"

read the transcripts of the press conference, the initial remark fitzgerald made about Libby revealing wilson's name to a reporter was in reference to Libby being the first known federal offical to have spoken to a reporter of wilson's identity.

it might be more instructuve to read the Libby.

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

there were 5 distinct, documented counts falling under three different federal statutes in the indictment; of obstruction of justice, giving false statements, and perjury. Libby will have to show the glove don't fit on five different counts. anyone of which can put him in jail if found guilty.

0 Replies

Yes, but you do not rebut the line in the article which says: " CONTRADICT FTZGERALD'S PORTRAIT"

The indictment is the usual type. The prosecutor throws everything in but the kitchen sink. Mr. Libby is represented by very fine lawyers. We shall see. In the meantime, we must note that Fitzgerald's Oct. 28th Press Conference revealed that the prosecutor's office "HAVE NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THT MR. LIBBY KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY OUTED A COVERT AGENT"
Fitzgerald is then left with the thin gruel of showing perjury. We shall see if a jury convicts Libby of perjury after Libby's lawyers show that LIbby indeed handled thousands of items as part of his job. After all, when Clitnon gave a deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said "I don't remember 71 times and I don't know- 62 times.

This from the brightest policy wonk of the twentieth century.

The key here is not whether Libby perjured himself. He might have. The key is that, except in venues like the Village Voice, this case is not about the outing of a covert agent.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Yes, but you do not rebut the line in the article which says: " CONTRADICT FTZGERALD'S PORTRAIT"

Please explain how anything in that article disproves charges of giving false statements or obstruction of justice.

Mortkat wrote:

The indictment is the usual type.

And how would you know what the usual type of indictment is? Do you have experience in this field?

Mortkat wrote:

The prosecutor throws everything in but the kitchen sink.

And sometimes that kitchen sink lands right on the head of the defendant.

Mlortkat wrote:

In the meantime, we must note that Fitzgerald's Oct. 28th Press Conference revealed that the prosecutor's office "HAVE NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THT MR. LIBBY KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY OUTED A COVERT AGENT"
Fitzgerald is then left with the thin gruel of showing perjury.

Wrong. We are still left with several counts of giving false statements and obstruction of justice. Nothing about that press conference changes that.

Mortkat wrote:

The key here is not whether Libby perjured himself.

Mr. Libby would disagree. If perjury is proved, he can go to jail. If charges of giving false statments or obstruction of justice are proved, he can go to jail.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Yes, but you do not rebut the line in the article which says: " CONTRADICT FTZGERALD'S PORTRAIT"

The indictment is the usual type. The prosecutor throws everything in but the kitchen sink. Mr. Libby is represented by very fine lawyers. We shall see. In the meantime, we must note that Fitzgerald's Oct. 28th Press Conference revealed that the prosecutor's office "HAVE NOT MADE ANY ALLEGATION THT MR. LIBBY KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY OUTED A COVERT AGENT"
Fitzgerald is then left with the thin gruel of showing perjury. We shall see if a jury convicts Libby of perjury after Libby's lawyers show that LIbby indeed handled thousands of items as part of his job. After all, when Clitnon gave a deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said "I don't remember 71 times and I don't know- 62 times.

This from the brightest policy wonk of the twentieth century.

The key here is not whether Libby perjured himself. He might have. The key is that, except in venues like the Village Voice, this case is not about the outing of a covert agent.

excuse me, but you did you just eat a big bowl of stupid for breakfast?

this is the quote to which you refer.

Quote:

the revelations from Woodward CONTRADICT Fitzgerald's earliest portrayal of Libby as the FIRST government official to leak Plame's identity to reporters."

that is not a true statement. all one has to do is examine the press conference transcript to see the actual words in context.

as to no indictment under IIPC or the espionage act, fitzgerald stated clearly that justice would be served under any indictment of a person making the leaks.

they never got Al Capone on murder charges either. which is an apropos analogy considering we are discussing the Bush Crime Family.

0 Replies

kuvasz, I love that term "Bush Crime Family." The shoe fits perfectly.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

kuvasz, I love that term "Bush Crime Family." The shoe fits perfectly.

Talk show host Mike Malloy seems to be the one who popularized that term. I have used it often. It fits.

...as the investigation continues and new evidence will be presented to the new Grand Jury.

0 Replies

er...hey nikki - is that you in that avatar?

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know