Posted on 02/23/2006 7:56:53 AM PST by PJ-Comix
But what never seemed clear, was whether Libby was lying to the Grand Jury, or was he relating the truth about lies he told Russert and Miller. Libby has admitted that he did lie to the reporters.
The whole thing really looks to me like a case where Fitzpatrick became frustrated at not being able to get a straight story about the leak to the press. He never did seem to have any real concern about Plame's covert status.
And as it turns out, it looks like he was basing her "covert" status with interviews of neighbors and friends. Since they didn't know she was CIA, she MUST be secret in his eyes. He doesn't have a single document from the CIA that says she was covert during that time, and goes on to say it doesn't matter!
Not exactly. Those conversations are the venue for Libby's misdirection to investigators - but the crux of the misdirection is Libby never mentioned to investigators that he in fact knew Plame worked at the CIA.
And as it turns out, it looks like he was basing her "covert" status with interviews of neighbors and friends.
I think he never investigated it. He trusted the CIA to not file what amounts to a false report.
Assume for a moment that Plame was in fact covert. CIA reports the leak, but they can't prosecute for want of 1) whodunnit, and 2) did that person have the requisite a) knowledge of classified information and b) mens rea to commit a crime? The DoJ task is to investigate points 1 & 2 - the CIA duty is to not report "non-covert" leaks. The point being, Fitz's failure to question the CIA is understandable - he wouldn't investigate "covert status" because he assumed the CIA wouldn't report a leak unless they could hold up the part of the crime that THEIR knowledge supported - "covert" and "taken measures to conceal."
Sort of like the cops don't keep asking you if the person is really missing if you file a missing persons report. At some point or level, the investigator HAS TO accept the word of the person making the report/referral.
Fitzgerald could, and should, disclose that she was not an undercover agent, and close the case with apologies to the Bush administration and Libby.
Bill Clinton, President of the United States, lied under oath about a material fact, pertinent to a federal lawsuit. He got a pass, with Geraldo saying, "It's only about sex." For Libby, "It's about a simple conversation, which is his 1st Amendment right. At least it used to be."
"But the issue of Valerie Wilson's status underlay every aspect of the CIA leak investigation; indeed, it was presumably the threshold question that Fitzgerald had to answer before proceeding with the probe. Why he has so far refused to provide any information to Libby's team is simply not clear."
No, it is quite clear that Ms. Plame's status is not germane to a perjury case. See Martha Stewart - guilty of lying to fbi not charged with violating stock trading rules and inside info.
"Fitzzzzzzz is not the problem. He is a stone nut case trying to save face. It's the judge that I'm more concerned. He is stonewalling and totally not enforcing the disclosure right to the defense."
There is no "disclosure" right or a "discovery" right in a federal criminal case. The feds do not have to disclose information to the defense that tends to show defendant is guilty. The feds do have to disclose "exculpatory" evidence (evidence which tends to show a defendant might not be guilty). This is called Brady material and the discretion of what to turn over is in Fitzy's domain. If Fitzy fails to turn over what is later determined to be Brady material his career will be essentially over. Also, all grand jury testimony is confidential and is not turned over to the defense until the time a witness testifys during trial (so the defense can examine to see if the two testimony's are consistent.)
1. Does he not have evidence? His indictment apparently used the word "classified". If he has no evidence, is he guilty of perjury for a false certification of the indictment?
2. If he doesn't have evidence that Plame's role was classified, is he then guilty of fraud on the American people for not first investigating whether there was a crime committed?
3. If he committed fraud on the American people by attempting to entrap individuals to allegedly make false statements regarding a non-crime, is he guilty of squandering the taxpayers' money when an early finding might have revealed that no crime was committed?
4. Did he just drag this case on so he could have a low-stress, guaranteed paycheck for as long as he could make it last.
Inquiring minds, ie those who footed the bill for this farce, want to know.
If her status wasn't classified, wouldn't Fitzgerald be committing fraud if he continued to pursue and investigation once he determined that she wasn't classified? Does Fitzgerald have a conflict of interest between his personal interests and those of the government, ie, protecting his own butt against the accusation that he pursued an investigation under false pretenses, ie when the release of the information may not have been a crime at all?
It appears that Fitzgerald is stonewalling in an attempt to avoid potential charges of illegality against himself, for continuing an investigation into a non-crime.
If there was no underlying crime and Fitzgerald knew it, how many statutes is he guilty of breaking by pursuing an unwarranted investigation and spending taxpayer money just so he could keep a paycheck coming in?
Do you remember his silly baseball analogy?
He likened his role to that of an umpire trying to determine whether a pitcher beaned a batter intentionally or by accident. "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure out what happened, and somebody blocked their view."
Turns out the umpire is an ass and the ball never touched the batter. Too bad there isn't instant replay in baseball and Libby has his name tarnished by this wannabe Spitzer hack.
BINGO!
I respectfully disagree. He would not have got the information from Libby whether Plame was in a classified position or not; that should have come from some other source, such as the CIA itself.
I don't think this is true. They have to report any exposure of an individual as if it is a genuine exposure of an operative to prevent the press from "guessing" people out of the proverbial CIA closet.
If the CIA is obligated to ignore bogus leaks, then all a foreign power or a nosy journalist need do is use newspapers to accuse anyone they suspect [or need to vet] of being a covert CIA operative of being just that... and then wait for the ensuing Grand Jury investigation or lack thereof. If there's an investigation, then they have successfully identified a NOC and obtained a juicy bit of intel. If there's no investigation, then it's a false alarm and the person is safe, a nobody, also good intel. It seems to be an easy way separate real agents from bystanders.
It would be more prudent to investigate all leaks as if they were accurate ones and just drop the investigations for lack of evidence or mistrial if the person "exposed" as an agent is a nobody after all, following through with prosecutions only if the leak was genuine and there's evidence of a crime. The leaker could be punished with another charge so nobody ever knows for sure if an operative was exposed.
It may be that the reason Fitz never asked the CIA to validate her position is because he knows the CIA cannot confirm or deny for the reasons above. And he knows that given the charges, it's a moot issue anyway since Libby's not being charged with exposing an agent. It might also be why Libby's not being charged with it- to charge him with it would confirm that she was a genuine noc and invite closer inspection of her past contacts, some of whom may still be active. So he gets charged with something else.
Fitz has to assume the CIA believes a real leak occured even if it didn't - he has no way to know if the CIA isn't telling, and they don't have to tell if no one is convicted of leak an operative's identity. But just because Fitz has to treat it as a real leak does not mean that it is or that the CIA has verified it one way or another.
Agreed. If Libby had just refused to testify, then Fitzgerald wouldn't have been able to catch him in anything. There are plenty of cases (Martha Stewart being the most famous example) of someone being cleared of the underlying crime and yet they're still convicted of perjury and/or lying to investigators.
The problem with Libby not testifying is that he'd probably have to resign from government job anyways, I've never heard of a government appointee pleading the Fifth and keeping his job.
So, even if Plame's identity was not classified, Libby is still toast.
I guess it's time for him to 'put up or shut up'.
The Left will move on to create their next Republican "scandal" with the full support of some other rogue Prosecutor, the NY Slimes, Washington Compost and the rest of the Left-Wing Media
I disagree, if Fitzgerald cannot produce proof that Valerie was classified during the time when Libby was part of this, then the whole thing legally folds, since the charges would not be over any illegality.
In the end if it is proved V. Wilson was NOT classified at the time, then all the Democrats would be eating crow.
Also, maybe the defense has the right to have the classified issue answered by the government for him under oath or by statement.
I think the Democrats and Fitz are going to come off stupid and screwed here again.
I hope your view is correct. I fearfully await the judge's ruling.
"... her employment status was classified."
I would wager that the official CIA list of its employees, their status AND clearances is classified.
That doesn't mean that mean that Plame was a covert operator. I bet there are thousands of CIA employees holding Confidential, Secret and even Top Secret clearances that are office workers at Langley and other sites.
He's playing with words here.
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.