Freed Writer Testifies in CIA Leak Probe

New York Times reporter Judith Miller told a grand jury yesterday about her conversations with Vice President Cheney's top aide in the summer of 2003, moving the two-year investigation into whether senior Bush administration officials illegally leaked covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity a step closer to its end.

Sources familiar with Miller's testimony say her account of two discussions with Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, that July are similar to the account Libby reportedly gave the grand jury last year.

"But, why would the prosecutor agree to such a deal?!"

I think the only reason that he would agree is that the purpose of the investigation is to see if an adminstration official had leaked it. If, after all, the person(s) who leaked were not in the adminstration, he would not have reason to prosecute anyway. Her testimony jived with Libby's. The real crime here was that she held on to that information and dragged the whole process out. She deserved to spend time in jail. Will we ever know?
I think the answer is what most have already said: Plame's identity was NOT a closely guarded secret...the journalists put two and two together..especially if Plame's name was listed in public documents with Joe Wilson...and it was.

The assumption has been that it was solely about Plame and then when Fitzgerald subpoenaed the NYT telephone records, it was concluded that the investigation had expanded.

I have found no evidence whatsoever that the cases have been merged. The fact that Juith Miller is a party in both in interesting, but doesn't cause the two cases to combine in any way.

The request from Fitzgerald to the NYT for telephone records, in the Holy Land case, was sent in August, 2002 (p16 of Sweet's opinion) and has been fought since then. The opinion of Judge Sweet is loaded with facts relating to that case, as well as legal arguments on both sides of compelling disclosure of confidential source evidence from a reporter.

The Plame case is a special prosecutor with a specific charge of finding whether or not (and if so, who) leaked the identity of a covert government agent, Valeri Plame. That inquiry does not overlap the Holy Land investigation.

From the link you provided ...

Fitzgerald's subpoenas to the four reporters in the CIA leak probe did not have to be approved by the Justice Department because, in that matter, he is acting in his capacity as a special counsel.

The assumption has been that it was solely about Plame and then when Fitzgerald subpoenaed the NYT telephone records, it was concluded that the investigation had expanded.

Timeline of the Holy Land Foundation records review ...

Aug 7, 2002: Fitzgerald's request for voluntary production of NYT phone records
July - 2004: Fitzgerald threatens legal action if the records are not produced voluntarily
Sep 29, 2004: NYT files a request for declaratory judgement, befopre the government acts to compel turning over of the telephone records.
Feb 24, 2005: Federal District Court Judge Sweet renders a judgement that the government has not met its burden to compel disclosure
May 2005: The government appeals the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

The Plame case timeline is interesting, and dovetails the NYT/Holy Land case. I emphasize though, that I see no relationship between the two cases, except that both involve Judith Miller and both involve government access to reporter's records for the purpose of criminal investigation.

Feb 2002: Wilson goes to Niger
Jan 28, 2003: President Bush says, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
July 6, 2003: Wilson writes "What I didn't find in Africa", critical of this statement in Bush's SOU
July 14, 2003: Novak's column is published. It contains this sentences, ""Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" [the allegation]
July 22, 2003: Newsday publishes "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover"
July 30, 2003: CIA requests DOJ to undertake a criminal investigation
Sep 29, 2003: Schumer calls for appointment of Special Counsel
Dec 30, 2003: Fitzgerald is appointed Special Counsel

So, the reporters and DEM's have whipped up a firestorm of allegations that the administration has illegally leaked the identity of a CIA undercover agent. The finger pointing is loud and frequent. The request is for a special prosecutor.

Forward a year or so, and the reporters are refusing to testify, and behind the scenes the smae media that was pointing fingers argues that no crime has been committed.

See also The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game - FactCheck.org. It's good for links to reference material, but as alsways, do not trust their parpahrase, analysis or conclusions.

Is there an official document outlining the charge or are we all operating off of what the media sketches together?

There is an official document. The press does its level best to not cite to the record, since that makes it too easy to find their stupidity and misinformation.

On December 30, 2003, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, acting in his capacity as Acting Attorney General, appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, as Special Counsel to investigate the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity. Special Counsel Fitzgerald's delegation reads as follows:
"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you 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, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department." [3]
In February 2004, Acting Attorney General Comey clarified Special Counsel Fitzgerald's delegation of authority to state that the authority previously delegated to him is plenary. It also states, "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." [4] ...
[3] Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Dec. 30, 2003.
[4] Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Feb. 6, 2004. The Department of Justice adopted 28 C.F.R. Part 600 (64 Fed. Reg. 37038, July 9, 1999), to replace the procedures of the expired Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. While the Part 600 procedures provide that a Special Counsel appointed by the Attorney General (or in cases when the Attorney General is recused, by the Acting Attorney General) is to be selected from outside the government, the delegation clearly states that Special Counsel Fitzgerald is not a Special Counsel whose appointment is subject to Part 600.
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302582.htm

See also http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/comey123003doj-pconf.html, Comey's press conference of December 30, 2003, wehre he announced his decision to appoint Fitzgerald, and took questions from the press. That gives a good sense of the mind-set of the press at the time.

Thanks for all of the information. I am going to be back later to further digest it all. As an aside, I wonder how David Corn's July 16, 2003 article fits in your time-line. The last I heard Corn had claimed not to have been subpoenaed but his article beat Newsday's (whose editor I remember being shocked that his guys were subpoenaed).

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? CORN LINK

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.