Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boundless
had Libby admitted to the GJ that he didn't have an open source for the admitted discussions with reporters, would Fitzy have then tried to charge on the supposed original leak?

Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there to be a charge for revealing her identity: (a) her status must have been classified, (b) there must have been active government measures to conceal her status and identity, and (c) she must have operated overseas within the last five years.

All three conditions must be met.

Given that he's working out of the long-established Counter Espionage offices at the DoJ, it's implausible that Fitzgerald *doesn't* know beyond question what Plame's status actually was. He never even *hinted* at her actual status in his one-hour+ press conference (yet that has been the central scope of the investigation).

Since Libby did receive his information though classified channels, and he also holds clearance, there's no doubt that he could be charged if Plame met the above criteria.

And since Fitzgerald went instead for five lesser charges, we must infer that Plame did not hold the necessary status. After all, the entire 2-year investigation revolved around this central issue.

15 posted on 10/30/2005 9:27:38 AM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: angkor

>> would Fitzy have then tried to charge on the supposed
>> original leak?

> Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there
> to be a charge for revealing her identity:

I wasn't referring to the 1982 law, but Libby's general
requirement to not disclose classified info.

I suspect everyone except barking moonbats agree by now
that Plame wasn't covered by the 1982 law.


19 posted on 10/30/2005 9:41:10 AM PST by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: angkor
Plame (not Libby) has to meet three conditions for there to be a charge for revealing her identity: (a) her status must have been classified, ...

She must be COVERT. As in "nobody is supposed to know she is associated with the CIA at all."

50 USC Section 426.
Definitions

(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

50 USC 426


39 posted on 10/30/2005 11:11:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson