Posted on 10/29/2005 8:16:08 AM PDT by frankjr
Suck-up!
Which is exactly why politics should remain non justiciable. And that's exactly what this whole affair was, politics.
I gotta go put new brake lines on my 1988 Wrangler. A job only a whackjob would attempt in his garage. Later.
Thank you for the clarity.
As to motive, there are multiple allegations about how Libby learned about Plame from others in the government before he ever talked to reporters. There is no allegation that Libby denied any of this. Later, in the perjury counts, his excerpted testimony has him explaining that when he talked to Russert he had forgotten that he already knew about Plame. So, I infer that Libby admitted to his prior knowledge, and then tried to reconcile that with his prior testimony that he learned it from reporters by saying he forgot that he knew.
Then why is the allegation about classified status in the indictment? It's to set up the materiality of the perjury, right? The defense is entitled to test that, don't you think?
Interestingly, apparently while the same grand jury is in session, one can go back and correct one's testimony (I am not clear if that means just returning to say that your recollection is refreashed, or that you lied), and doing so decriminalizes the prior lie, according to some ex federal prosecutor who was on Wolf Blitzer's show. That is apparently why Rove went back. And that might be the reason why Fitzpartrick waited until the grand jury's term was up, before issuing the indictment, in order to preclude Libby from doing that.
I think it is necessary background to explain why the subject was the point of so much speculation between the WH and the press corps. If it was literally true that "everybody knew," then the case easily evaporates. There has to be at least a pretense in order to support the nature of the conversations.
The defense is entitled to whatever it can find and take. But note that the defence "no crime because Plame is not covert" is exactly the same defense that Miller and Cooper asserted in order to get out of testifying before the GJ.
Its purpose is to show that Libby had a motive to lie, because he thought he would be in legal jeapordy if he admitted to disclosing to a reporter Plame's theretofore not known by persons not entitled to know status, which status was classfied, and known by him to be classified.
Four words will do it.
Lewis Wolf
Phillip Agee
Classified is no way the same as "Covert".
And no where in the indictment (based on my quick read) did I see where it showed if her job was classified, that Libby knew it was classified.
The defense based on clearing up your errors to the same grand jury is why I brought up the point that Libby admitted his prior knowledge. It's apparent that he admitted prior knowledge, admitted he did not learn it from reporters, and tried to explain that he forgot what he knew. I don't know the law on the subject, but I guess there must be some threshold of non-lameness that your explanation has to cross before it becomes a valid defense.
Her classified status gives both motive and materiality, so the defense gets to go into that.
It is very interesting that the indictment refers twice to discussions that Libby had with others in the OVP about how to respond to reporters' questions, but doesn't say who they were with, or what they decided or whether what Libby did was in conformity with what they discussed. That may have something to do with why Libby lied as well.
Wilson could certainly have been thoroughly discredited without ever mentioning his wife. Why they didn't just do that, I don't know. I speculate that they were caught up in the CIA v. The White House war, and saw Plame's role as highly significant - as we do - because it made L'Affaire Wilson into a CIA disinformation campaign against an incumbent president and they wanted to get that out to the media.
It is hypocritical, to say the least, for Fitz to give a sermon on the importance of telling the truth in the announcement of an indictment for perjury that repeats Wilson's abundant and obvious lies at face value without ever noting their falsity.
If I was Libby, I would make this into the trial of Wilson and the CIA to the max extent possible. There's a war on, ferchrissake.
Agreed.
Did Libby run back to the grand jury to testify that he now remembered? I don't know one way or the other. Remember, it is a DC jury. Waging war on Wilson and the CIA as to what it was doing to the Bush adminstration may not be as appealing there as in say, Lubbock.
He must have. They don't allege that he denied the prior knowledge, therefore, he must haved admitted it. Also, he attempts to reconcile his prior knowledge and his statement that he learned it from reporters by saying he forgot he knew. It must be that he tried to 'splain hisself. Unfortunately for him, his explanation was lame.
Well, as for making it into the trial of Wilson, it has the additional advantage of being true and a more palatable explanation than the one the prosecutor leaves on the table, that he is simply sliming an administration critic because he is consumed with a Nixonian bunker mentality.
Well the threashold question, is did Libby go back to the grand jury and testify again? Did he at that time say his earlier testimony was inaccurate? If he did that, then we are facing the issue, as to whether to cleanse you need to admit you lied like a rug. Rove, by the way, did NOT to that.
"If I was Libby, I would make this into the trial of Wilson and the CIA to the max extent possible. There's a war on, ferchrissake." ~ Buckhead
Absolutely.
Investigate The CIA
Investors.com ^ | 10/24/2005 | Editorial
Posted on 10/25/2005 7:21:39 AM EDT by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508739/posts
While the Bush administration hunkers down on indictment watch, Congress should take a look at political and possibly illegal activity by agenda-driven intelligence operatives.
Whatever fate befalls White House adviser Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and any other administration official caught up in the prosecution over the leaked name of a CIA officer, there's a back story to this case that should not be ignored.
It's about the CIA itself.
This is a story that most of the media will be trying hard not to cover. They share former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's stated desire to see Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "frog-march" Rove out of the White House in handcuffs.
So Congress should leave the media no choice. Hold hearings. Put the CIA on the spot and blow the lid off any politically motivated funny business. Bring some transparency to what has become a very murky issue.
We believe that someone needs to answer the questions raised recently by Joseph F. DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel:
Was there a covert operation against the president?
If so, who was behind it?
These aren't the musings of the tinfoil-hat brigade. A sober-minded case can be made that at least some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
IOW, Libby was indicted for crimes cited in the indictment and these crimes are not related to the conclusion of the investigation.
Since no report will be released, we will never know what the conclusion is except to say that if no one is charged with revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent we can only assume one of 4 things:
1. Valerie Plame was not covert
2. She was covert but there is not enough evidence to prove the release of her name violated the law
3. She was covert but there is not enough evidense to charge any one person with doing so.
4. No law was broken but investigation was bogus based on the flimsiet set of "facts."
From the presser:
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...
....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...
"...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.
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General.."
Wouldn't the very first order of business be the determination whether or not the "alleged unauthorized disclosure" was fact or fiction?
Here is the quote I have been looking for regarding the CIA`request:
Wilsongate: Did CIA run a covert op against an elected president?
By Clifff Kincaid
ACCURACY IN MEDIA
Saturday, October 22, 2005
...DiGenova raises serious questions about the CIA role not only in the Wilson mission but in the referral to the Justice Department that culminated in the appointment of a special prosecutor. At this point in the media feeding frenzy over the story, the issue of how the investigation started has almost been completely lost. The answer is that it came from the CIA.
Acting independently and with great secrecy, the CIA contacted the Justice Department with “concern” about articles in the press that included the “disclosure” of “the identity of an employee operating under cover.”
The CIA informed the Justice Department that the disclosure was “a possible violation of criminal law.” This started the chain of events that is the subject of speculative news articles almost every day. The CIA’s version of its contacts with the Justice Department was contained in a 4-paragraph letter to Rep. John Conyers, ranking Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee. Conyers and other liberal Democrats had been clamoring for the probe.
DiGenova doubts that the CIA had a case to begin with. He says he would like to see what sworn information was provided to the Justice Department about the status of Wilson’s CIA wife, Valerie Plame, and what “active measures” the CIA was taking to protect her identity. The implication is that her status was not classified or protected and that the agency simply used the stories about her identity to create the scandal that seems to occupy so much attention these days.
(A link to the response to Conyers from the CIA is here:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/cialeakinforesp13004.pdf)
So back to my original comments. If Fitzgerald was investigating alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity why didn't he start there?
Admittedly, I am no legal eagle, but I liken it to being accused of watering on an odd numbered day (we are an even day house) and instead of limiting the investigation to that, all members of the household are fair game to determine if any of us have ever broken any law.
[IMPORTANT NOTE: By CIA I mean the suspected rogue element that may exsist. I am not trashing the entire agency. I use CIA for typing ease. I want to be 100% clear on that point]
I am also concerned about the CIA's request. It is possible the request could contain information which we will never know. What better place than under the cover of "National Security" would such a manipulation occur? Anyone with an agenda and support of MSM could use the classified information angle as a tool to start an investigation hoping to catch the Bush Administration on a tiny little hook. (ie Use the referral as a fishing expedition.)
Fitz was reluctant to use to term "covert". The Comey letter refers to disclosure of a CIA employee's identity . An employee, not a covert agent.
What if the request was worded in such a way to use the Espionage Act? What if the request was tailored for the Espionage Act. They aren't stupid. This is what they do.
I don't even know if this post makes sense, but I thought I would throw it out there FWIW.
The Espionage Act was enacted into law on 15 June 1917. It was extended by the Sedition Act, one of Free Republic's favorites, in 1918 and then in 1921 major portions of it were repealed. In 1947 the remaining sections were incorporated into the National Security Act of 1947. The parts remaining that we are interested in vis a vis Libby are 18USC793 and 18USC794.
Please note that the first sentences of each law begin like this: "(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation.......".
Now it is my blue collar opinion that Fitzgerald is blowing smoke about the Espionage Act because he has two chances of convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby's intent was "to be used to the injury of the United States...", none and none.
Though the Espionage Act does deal with classified 'stuff' I'll tell you why Fitzgerald is blowing smoke again. In the turbulent 60's and 70's , Philip Agee, an ex CIA guy, was writing books exposing covert and classified agents to his hearts content. Lewis Wolfe, co editor of some rag called "Covert Action Information Bulletin" was doing the same thing in his rag. Both of them made the Mata Plame affair look like tea and crumpets with Aunt Irene as far as "outing" classified bureaucrats and covert operators. Neither ever spent a day in jail for it which tells me that the Espionage act did not obtain, as my pal Torie likes to say.
So you ask what did the Congress do to halt these dingdongs. They passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 amending the National Security Act of 1947.
The senate report on this law states that the Act was in response to "the systemic effort by a small group of Americans, including some former intelligence agency employees to disclose the names of covert intelligence agents." In other words prior to 1982, no such law prevented them from doing so which is why Agee is blowing smoke about Libby breaking the law as regards the Espionage Act.
Now the relevant section of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 that we are interested in is 50USC421
Since enactment of this law I can find only one person ever prosecuted under it and that was back in 1985, one Sharon Scranage a CIA officer in Ghana who pleaded guilty in 1985 to revealing other agents' names to her Ghanian boyfriend. She was sentenced to five years in prison, and she served eight months behind bars. I think it is rather obvious to all concerned that this law never applied since Valerie Plame had been in the US for over 5 years before this little tete a tete took place.
So, what does all this mean?
I dunno!
Just kiddin'.
Well, I think Libby's lawyer should be able to find a defense based on the fact that Libby knew all of this before he ever testified at the Grand Jury so why would his client lie about something he knew did not violate the law. Of course that depends on Libby having knowledge that Plame had been in the states for longer than 5 years. If he can prove he knew that, then he can certainly show reasonable doubt that he never intended to lie and claim neuronal dysfunction just sort of crept up on him over the years.
One caveat to this. If Libby lied intentionally then he should go to jail.
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.