Replies

I already have, several times.

See my prior posts regarding proving criminal knowledge of Plame's status as a covert agent, as opposed to someone merely working for the CIA, at the time of the communications.

If Fitzgerald cannot prove that any alleged leaker either had actual knowledge of Plame's status as a covert agent or reasonably believed she was a covert agent, he has no case relating to "unauthorized disclosure", as you put it. I think that its pretty clear that he has no case on the main part of the investigation, at least not against Cheney, Rove or Libby.

Perjury only comes into play if it is material to the underlying investigation. Although the underlying investigation also dealt with sources of leaks, Libby cannot be convicted of perjury for allegedly lying about his source unless it can also be shown that he knew Plame was a covert agent. It's a fine point of law but that's what I see in the leaks from unidentified lawyers close to the investigation, and all the prattling on about other issues by the likes of Fineman and O'Donnell yesterday.

Can you point to anything anywhere that indicates any target of the investigation besides Joe Wilson and Plame knew that Plame was a covert agent instead of simply a CIA employee at the time of the communications?

For an example of the kind of building block analysis that is easily chopped down by first rate legal professionals, see this O'Donnell article, where O'Donnell argues that anybody identified as “a CIA official" must be a covert agent. That's preposterous. George Tenet, a CIA official, was not covert. But that sort of argument underscores my point about the difficulty Fitzgerald will have in proving criminal knowledge of her status or perjury for testimony material to that point.

The fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA is just as probative, perhaps even more, of the alleged bad intent behind discrediting Wilson, than if she was working as a covert agent. If she was in a position to have her husband assigned to Niger, it's more likely that she'd have more influence as a "CIA official" than she would as a "covert agent".

Perjury only comes into play if it is material to the underlying investigation. Although the underlying investigation also dealt with sources of leaks, Libby cannot be convicted of perjury for allegedly lying about his source unless it can also be shown that he knew Plame was a covert agent. It's a fine point of law but that's what I see in the leaks from unidentified lawyers close to the investigation, and all the prattling on about other issues by the likes of Fineman and O'Donnell yesterday.

You may choose to disbelieve it because of the source, but here is how the NY Times article explains Libby's potential jeopardy:

"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.

The notes help explain the legal difficulties facing Mr. Libby. Lawyers in the case said Mr. Libby testified to the grand jury that he had first heard from journalists that Ms. Wilson may have had a role in dispatching her husband on a C.I.A.-sponsored mission to Africa in 2002 in search of evidence that Iraq had acquired nuclear material there for its weapons program. But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald's possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said."

Those who continue to focus on the "but Plame wasn't undercover and that's the only thing Fitzgerald is allowed to investigate" mantra are ignoring that back in 2004 the acting attorney general had told Fitzgerald he could bring charges against anyone who impedes his investigation in any way. That's the letter that I have quoted from.