Posted on 02/05/2006 7:12:06 PM PST by Tyche
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Hey, Isikoff. If you happen to hit Freeperville after the game:
Before today, this is what we knew for sure:
1. Fitz did not charge Libby with violating the 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent.
2. Libby did tell Miller about Plame.
Pick one:
3a. Plame was not a covert agent.
or
3b. Plame was a covert agent but Libby didn't know it.
Congratulations. If you are correct, then you've added another piece to the puzzle. Now, all I need to know from you is what makes you think this new information damages Libby's defense?
You are stretching, Dude.
I'm sorry, but NewsWeak has long lost its battle to persuade public opinion. I don't believe this story in the least... Let them go back to the publisher and try again with verifiable facts.
Also above.
That article raises questions about why Fitzgerald did not prosecute on Plame's covert status (He didn't have a case he could win).
The case he has is doodoo.
Yoohoo! Rats and Rat lovers. This is over. No-one cares, it has no legs, you're wasting ink.
Yawn..
Looks like Newsweak's gonna get her Hubby in Levenworth, yet, eh?
Thanks for that link...
Clarice Feldman has been all over this case from the start...good stuff.
The NY Times should have the flag of a foreign embassy flying over it. I can't wait for the next scumbag Times reported to sleep in a jail cell. Scooter will walk.
ts
So why Fitz did not mention this long time ago? This is absolute crap and lies.
So, "Spikey", if your wishful thinking piece has any merit, why then wasn't Libby indicted for outing her covert status?
These MSM dinosaurs have descended into a form of delusion that's simultaneously funny and scary. That they think a piece like this carries the weight to do damage it would have done 20 years ago is proof that they STILL think we're not smart enough to follow the logic, ask the questions and connect the dots they either don't or won't.
What kind of specific efforts were they making to conceal her identity? They didn't tell Novak that and it seems that it wasn't made clear to Libby or maybe even the White House. It makes me beyond angry to keep reading about the damage done here when there have been multiple leaks that I'm guessing have caused far much damage. And these leaks go unpunished and it seems hardly as intensely investigated.
This article clearly states that "Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion".
No. It does. Really.
LOLOLOL....oh, well, if Newsweak says so!
Granting Isikoff's premise (which I'm not sold on, but for the sake of argument), does this mean Joseph Wilson is subject to prosecution for allegedly disclosing Plame's background to several witnesses? Would Bob Woodward also be subject to prosecution if he discussed it with anyone? Nicholas Kristof? Etc.
A lawyer familiar with Miller's grand jury testimony said the special counsel asked her to discuss all relevant conversations she had with Libby before Novak published Plame's name. When Miller detailed two July 2003 discussions and said she could not remember any others, "Fitzgerald begged to differ.
He showed her a page from a White House logbook that recorded a June 23 visit by Miller to Libby at the Old Executive Office Building. Miller corrected herself and soon produced for the grand jury her notes from that meeting.
Soon after, Fitzgerald called it a day."
Did he prompt Libby this way?
Poor Issie...this article is not only spurious, but completely unbelievable and nonsensical.
Exactly!
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.