Posted on 10/30/2005 4:13:47 AM PST by SE Mom
The Wilson part that really interested Fitzgerald was tiny, as I told TIME readers. Basically, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife having been involved in sending him to Niger. Libby responded with words to the effect of, "Yeah, I've heard that too."
From the indictment:
b. LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003, that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, and further advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
I don't knw what Libby said but Cooper sure the hell doesn't claim what's purported in the indictment.
All true but think about this, those same MSM types under oath being cross examined by a competent attorney. I'd pay to see that.
I wish the 100%ers would make up their mind. For months ever single Freeper thread is filled with dozens of posts ranting about how "Bush has got to fight back" then they turn right around and rant about how stupid the Bush team is to talk to reporters. Talking to reporters is part of getting THEIR side of the story out instead of just letting the Dems spin go unchallenged.
Understand the nature of the indictment- but could it be that Libby (when saying he was getting all this info from reporters) is in fact refering to whether Plame sent Wilson.
LOL- I'm short one cup of coffee to clearly state what I'm thinking.
I posted this on another thread this morning:
Question for anyone.....
The letter appointing Fitzgerald is dated December 30, 2003
The letter from Comey to Fitzgerald authorizing an expansion is dated Februaury 6, 2004.
A mere 30-some odd days.
For us non-laywers out here , would that indicate :
1. a request for clarification of responsibilities
or
2. Fitzgerald did, in fact, learn quickly Plame was not covert?
we spoke for a few minutes as I sprawled on my bed.
WTH kind of reporting is this where a reader has concern for the reporters hygene and comfort level...Is this the prelude to the novel he's trying to sell?
What a pompas, egocentric dick!
Yes, he does. You were quoting the part of the indictment that refers to Libby's "false statements". See #32.
The prosecutor evidently believed Cooper because his testimony matched that of the other reporters who spoke with Libby.
Some background info on the laws involved and how Libby may be able to beat the rap.
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
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? 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.
Fitzgerald says Libby says he heard it from reporters. Big difference.
Libby is not being indicted for that. See #32.
We know that Plame is NOT a covert agent. Fitzgerald has addressed that through his silence.
Thus the obstruction of Justice charge. /sarcasm
I don't think the exact contents of the conversation with Cooper is the issue in the indictment. It's Libby's statements to the FBI and GJ, when describing the conversations, that's the problem. Basically, Libby told investigators that he did not know for sure that Plame worked for the CIA.
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.