Yep. I read the indictment before the press conference got underway, and I was struck exactly this way. Fitz's rhetoric was designed to lead the casual listener to an inference that Plame's outing was bad, or even illegal. It was neither.
Check this out and tell me what you think:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/libbys-indictment-does-not-depend-upon.html
Since no report seems to be forthcoming, is there anyway to get the transcripts of Libby to see how the questions were posed (were they asked specifically to the reporters contact, or did you know on Y, no, gave documentation showing he knew on Y...or both...etc.)
This doesn't make sense.
And if that press conf. Fitz gave didn't show prejudice... I don't know what does.
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.