Posted on 10/24/2005 9:05:41 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Monday, Oct. 24, 2005 10:24 p.m. EDT Times: Cheney First Disclosed CIA Official's Name
The New York Times reported late Monday that Vice President Cheney has been directly linked to the so-called "Plamegate" scandal involving the disclosure of the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer.
The paper reported that Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby "first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003."
The paper sourced their story to "lawyers involved in the case."
The Times said that notes taken by Libby differ from his own testimony before the grand jury as to when he first learned of Plame's identity.
"The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration’s handling of intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear program to justify the war."
Cheney apparently discovered details of Plame's CIA work after he questioned then CIA Director George J. Tenet about her husband, Ambassador Wilson.
But even if Libby or Cheney had disclosed Plame's identity as a CIA officer they may not have committed a crime.
"Disclosing a covert agent’s identity can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent’s undercover status," the Times said.
And Cheney telling Libby is not a crime. Regardless of what her status is.
The good part about a weakened administration is that they've been forced to lose the pretense of independent popularity and now they have to move back to the Right or lose all support. So we get the gun rights bill, an end to "catch and release" at the border, Endangered Species reform, new oil refineries, spending cuts, budget reform, and next we'll get a good nominee to replace Harriet Miers.
It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry.
NYT isn't suggesting Cheney did anything wrong
That's true, as far as the underlying crime of outing a covert agent is concerned. But even the Slimes has realized for some time now that nobody's getting indicted on that underlying crime.
So now they're trumpeting the angle that Libby lied about who his source was by testififying that he heard about Plame from a reporter when his notes reveal Cheney as his source. In order for a perjury charge to stick, it has to be material to the investigation of the underlying crime. Fitzgerald cannot prove that anybody knew or reasonably believed that Plame was a covert agent at the time of the communications, so it really doesn't matter one whit at all who the source of any communications was. If he can't prove knowledge of Plame's covert status, quite frankly any witness could lie about his or her source without committing perjury.
OUR side?
Those vehemently opposed to democrats winning elections and holding majorities.
I'm not sure how much is clearly on the record regarding what Libby or Rove have testified.
For example, Libby might have initially learned that Wilson was recommended by his CIA wife from Cheney.
That is not inconsistent with him also having heard about Wilson's wife from reporters. I think I have heard that Rove said to a reporter, "I have heard that, also", as a response to their information about Plame.
Similarly, there have been discussions about who called whom. It's just simply a fact that information can flow in either direction independent of who placed a call.
Does anybody have a definitive quote attributed to Libby that is inconsistent with Libby having been aware of Plame from Cheney? It isn't a "leak" for people inside the White House to discuss these matters. The real question remains, "How did the fact that Wilson's wife is or was a covert agent become known to the press"?
The fact that Libby may have known this key fact makes him a member of a fairly large group that could have leaked the information. But its a large group.
Zactly! They drag a skunk through everyone's living room and even after it's put out the stink remains.
The MSM just keeps getting dirtier and dirtier in their losing battle for relevence. They're on the way out and I think they know it, so they're trying to drag as many people down with them as possible.
Are you dim or just acting dim?
You know that is the truest statement I've heard about this whole thing. It IS a joke... never should have happened and Valerie Plame/Flame should have been fired for sending her husband on this mission... and if not her, then her boss... I'm afraid the entire CIA has become a joke since Clinton was President.
The woman recommended her husband Wilson for the mission.
She was already an active participant - and if you ask me conspirator, given Wilson's actions - in the game.
This isn't some political adversary they went digging dirt on - this is the woman who recommended her husband for the mission. She is right in the center of the entire story.
It just seems a bit silly that they would not know her name, or refer to her by name, or be expected not to refer to her, especially given she was not covert anyway. What should they have called her "secret agent X".
This is typical liberal nonsense blown out of proportion by a media that has lost all sense of normalcy and rationality.
Not just the Times.. try MSNBC, too... only difference is no one watches it since Rick Kaplan took over and bringing Lawrence O'Donnell back to commentate on this is the end for me.
IIRC: Miller said that Libby did NOT give her Plame's name and Miller went on to say she could not recall who did.
Even better, what kind of clearance is it that allows you to write about it in The New York Times?
Are you sure about this?
Paula Jones sued Clinton for lying about her. There was no issue of whether Clinton had committed a crime. Yet Clinton was disbarred for having committed perjury before a grand jury.
Fuhrman in the OJ trial, I believe, was convicted of perjury for having lied about using the "n" word. It wasn't a crime to use the word, but it was a crime for Fuhrman to lie about facts which could reflect on his likelihood of carrying out his duties in an unbiased fashion.
The materiality of a question is not dependent upon whether the question directly involves the details of a crime, but whether the answer is important to the judicial process.
Since he was CIA director and not afraid to discuss her why would anyone else be afraid to discuss her identity?
You like a weakened administration?
What a fool you are.
Hate to burst your bubble, but if Dick Cheney called me ten minutes ago withthe information, then you called me with the information as a reporter, and I did not offer it to you but you offered it to me, you would have offered the information to me "first" in our relationship.
I can still have learned about Plame from you, and not the other way around.
This is so much gobbledygook. Wait til the massive news is revealed. The only reason this is a story is the hatred of the media for Bush.
If Libby told reporters about it and he knew she was covert and he did it to damage her and Wilson a crime has been committed.
His source of information is irrelevant, unless he was directed to call the media and conspire to damage Plame. But of course, the NYT didn't say that - they are claiming nonsensical deductions from incomplete data. Cheney telling him is meaningless.
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.