[colorado tanker]

On the question of Wilson's status, Fitzgerald wrote, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.'"

Does that mean Fitz never investigated whether there was an IIPA violation, the job he was hired to do in the first place???

[advance_copy]

Does that mean Fitz never investigated whether there was an IIPA violation, the job he was hired to do in the first place???

Yep. And that is seriously irresponsible.

[t2buckeye]

My exact thought!!! Fitzgerald was charged with determining if a crime was committed: the leak of classified information to damage a CIA agent and/or her husband in retaliation and all that goes with that.

The only way to prove the above is to determine the status of Plame. From what this says, he is not just saying that the information about Plame's status is not relevant...he's saying he doesn't KNOW her status. How could Fitzgerald NOT know if a crime was committed if he cannot say whether or not Plame was undercover at the time. That's an integral part of the legislation. He decided to NOT charge LIbby with the crime of leaking classified information...why not? That was obviously the charge they were looking into, and Plame's status would have been necessary to determine the charge.

To say that it has no relevance to Libby's perjury is wrong too. The whole point of Libby's "lying" is based on Fitz's belief that Libby THOUGHT or KNEW she was classified and was motivated to lie about his "leaks." In Libby's capacity, perhaps he KNEW that she wasn't classified (and therefore, knew he was in no danger of leaking classified info and therefore no motive to lie)