Posted on 10/02/2005 12:10:11 AM PDT by YaYa123
As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.
With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.
His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President subtittle: Bush and Cheney Aides' Testimony Contradicts Earlier White House Statement
Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.
Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Shays is a snake.
He will go on in the report, I believe, and suggest, perhaps directly but probably only by implication, that the law should be changed so that the kind of discussions by Rove and Libby would be criminal in the future.
Why no indictments? Because it doesn't appear that Rove or Libby had the state of knowledge and intent required to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
But what about conspiracy? Well, to prove conspiracy there must be a predicate crime as the object of the conspiracy. Discrediting or retaliating against Wilson is not a crime (actually it's the patriotic duty of all good Americans, LOL!), and there was no illegal leak. Further, there can have been no conspiracy to slander Wilson or his wife because there was nothing untruthful leaked, and as we know truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case.
What about bringing indictments against journalists who may be setting up Rove or Libby, or who may have obstructed or lied in Fitzgerald's investigation? Would never happen. A US Attorney with political aspirations, especially a Democrat, will never go after members of the MSM.
The three possibilities set forth by POWERLINE in Post #29 above are good analysis, but we can eliminate alternative #2 from our thinking right off the bat. The subpoena under which she was required to testify was limited to the Plame matter. Her lawyers are not idiots, there is no way on earth they would let Fitzgerald start going off on her under oath about a completely different case. Folks, it could never happen.
I think there are only two plausible scenarios consistent with what we know so far.
1. Miller didn't know about Plame before talking to Libby, and went to jail simply so she would be known forever after as "Saint Judy, First Amendment Martyr" and get back in the graces of her liberal buddies at the NYT. A variation of this is that it wasn't her idea to go to jail, but she got bullied into by Abrams (who will fight his First Amendment battles to the last journalist!) and her bosses at the NYT. Then Bob Bennett came in and talked sanity to her. Why did she stay the extra week and a half in jail? She and her lawyers wanted the agreement limiting the scope of questioning, which was no big deal, but it does take a few days for these things for the lawyers to review, agree any changes, sign off, etc.
2. Miller knew about Plame before talking to Libby, and perhaps she was part of a number of conversations among other journalists or other administration or CIA or State people discussing Plame. She was concerned that she could have been asked HOW she knew about Plame and didn't want to open that can of worms. In this scenario, the agreement limiting scope of questioning WAS a big deal, and getting this is what made her comfortable going before the Grand Jury.
I think eventually more facts of the case will dribble out and we will learn whether the foregoing #1 or #2 was really the case.
Several telling things in this article in the way these reporters chose to phrase details.
The first glaringly pro-Wilson version (there is zero doubt Wilson was intimately involved in the spin in this "piece") is this framing:
At the behest of the CIA, he had flown to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the administration's assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium in the African nation for use in its nuclear weapons program. Wilson returned unconvinced the assertion was true. However, Bush himself made the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address, prompting Wilson to spread word throughout the government and eventually make public his rebuttal.
As we know, the CIA sub-group involving Plame sent Wilson on their own initiative. His trip did not have the sanction of "the CIA" as implied here. Further, as we all know, "Bush" did not cite Niger and uranium, he cited British intelligence having information that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa (no nation named).
The next interesting item I found is the bizarre theory that "discrediting" Wilson with facts is a crime:
But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.
Let's see, Wilson is misrepresenting his trip, its findings, its scope and who sent him and who knew about it and when reporters ask officials such as Libby and Rove about Wilson's claims and they ask around and then provide reporters with what they've learned---which happens to be the fact that Wilson's wife recommended him and they knew nothing about his trip before or its dubious findings---and this is a "crime"? I think not.
But then we come to this most obvious item of evidence that shows beyond any doubt that Joe Wilson is the main source here:
The Niger claim was central to the White House's rationale for war, and Wilson was on a one-man crusade to disprove it. Early on, his actions caught the eye of the vice president's office, which was often the emotional and intellectual force pushing the United States to war based on fears of potential weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Cheney and Libby were intimately involved in building the case for the war, which included warnings that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
This paragraph above is so obvious. Cheney's office was "the emotional" force pushing the U.S. to war? Spin spin and more spin. The piece goes on with news I am glad to hear as I suspected it but wasn't sure:
Cheney's staff was looking into Wilson as early as May 2003, nearly two months before columnist Robert D. Novak identified Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, according to administration sources familiar with the effort. What stirred the interest of the vice president's office was a May 6 New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof in which the mission to Niger was described without using Wilson's name. Kristof's column said Cheney had authorized the trip.
According to former senior CIA officials, the vice president's office pressed the CIA to find out how the trip was arranged, because Cheney did not know that a query he made much earlier to a CIA briefer about a report alleging Iraq was seeking Niger uranium had triggered Wilson's trip. "They were very uptight about the vice president being tagged that way," a former senior CIA official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. "They asked questions that set [off] a chain of inquiries."
Imagine being "uptight" because you are being maligned in the pages of the New York Times. How odd...Not
I am pleased to hear they were asking about the trip as it shows they weren't clueless to these articles, but it does show the WH should have been better prepared to address Wilson's false charges.
And even though the VP's office was rightly asking about a trip he knew nothing about yet was being targeted with accusations due to this trip, still they did not disclose Plame's name (and so what if they had? Respectable reporters acknowledge that much evidence points away from Plame having had a covert status at least for many years, unlike these two who assert it as if established fact) just her role as "his wife" recommending him and rightly saying Wilson was not credible.
Of course I would love to know who the "former CIA official" is. I'd guess Plame herself except the NY Times claims she's back at work in an undisclosed role.
Today's Washington Post article on this story concentrated on Scott McClellan misleading the country about Rove and Liddy's involvement.
Just now, Lanny Davis did the same thing on CNN's Late Edition.
I smell something. Could it be the MSM and the left now suspect Fitzgerald will bring no indictments? That being the case, all the MSM would have left to chew on would be McClellan? Did he lie? Did he know he was lying? Did the President tell him to lie? Those are the questions Lanny Davis was focused on today.
AND....did the New York Times even cover the Judith Miller story today? I don't think so.
Exactly right, Erik. I think Fitzgerald will ask for an expansion of his investigation beyond whether anyone in the Whitehouse intentionally 'outed' Plame, to a conspiracy investigation involving Wilson, Plame, Miller, Cooper, Tenet and the entreched Clintonista Lefties at the CIA to get rid of Karl Rove. Look for democrats, MSM and especially NYT to vigorously oppose this 'witch hunt'.
>>or her covert status at the CIA<<
She drove down to CIA every working day and everyone in her neighborhood knew where she worked.
WASHINGTON — The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest. In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.
I also heard somewhere (maybe on Free Republic) that Joe Wilson himself included his wife's name in one of his published books?
From what we know, which really isn't much, I see no cause to issue a report condeming the actions of Rove or Libby. They were responding to questions from reporters -- they were not marketing this news. Furthermore, Joe Wilson told blatant lies about Cheney sending him on this trip. I cannot see how a prosecutor can indict anyone for getting the truth out to counter the open lies about Cheney's involvement in this. I also think this investigation is much broader than the plame game -- it is only speculation on my part -- but I believe a good chunk of this investigation involves the Rockerfeller memo. Rockerfeller's actions and the memo were referred to the ethics committe a long time ago -- perhaps from there it went into the hands of the special investigator -- it just went there without any public scrutiny. I look forward to seeing what comes out from the Fitzgerald investigation.
I think it's part #1, and part #2. I think she knew Plame's identity as Wilson's wife before Libby and Rove did. I think she also fancied herself a 1st amendment martyr - but only for 90 days. Her presence in jail was useful to those who advocated creating or extending a federal priviledge relating to revealing confidential sources. I think the "we waited until we had a personal waiver" was either face saving (meant to ward off accusations of 1st amenedment martyr), or evidence of stupidity for going to jail at all.
Please tell give us more facts. Lots of people read FR and that info has to be put out there.
There are several threads on this matter. In addition to Miller, her colleague at the Times, reporter Philip Shenon, also tipped off an Islamic Charity.
Oh, this is the first I recall hearing of this, I think. I do know there's another Islamic charity that was tipped off, too, Global something, that cropped up in another story.
Here's where the idea that Cheney sent him got started, by Wilson himself:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm
and it is in fact repeated in this WaPo article (see my excerpts in post #63).
Wilson was the source for Kristof's May article.
I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
The "person involved" cited above was none other than Joe Wilson.
Yes, it does not say that Cheney personally requested Wilson be sent, that is how the MSM would proceed to characterize it. And all evidence is that is how Wilson was pleased to have it perceived.
My sharp impression, admittedly not having paid too close attention to this entire saga, is that the danger here is not Rove or Libby being charged with breaking some obscure law about outing some not entirely covert CIA operative. The danger here is the claim of discrepencies between the testimony of the reporters (Cooper for instance) and the testimony of high Bush administration figures. I.e., the danger is that charges of perjury might be forthcoming. Think Martha Stewart, whose lies about a crime she was never charged with put her in prison. Whether this will happen, I have no idea. But the democrats are hopeful.
If he chooses this path he will be thoroughly discredited as any "inner workings" talk started with Wilson blabbing about a CIA mission.
An ostensible CIA mission as he was sent by the non-proliferation group on their own initiative, his "findings" not disseminated and his later claims misrepresented it.
If any report were to chastise officials for correcting the record of the malicious falsehoods being spread by the likes of Wilson, that report will be a disgrace.
You know, I do not know what prevents some democrat operative from selectively taking the rumors and inuendo as well as statements from a variety of people involved in this case and if Fitzgerald does not bring down an indictment, they go venue shopping and file a lawsuit against Libby, Cheney, and others. It would keep it on the front burners of the New York Times and tie up the government. This is what is being done to Delay. Perhaps Delay is a trial balloon, and if it slips the way of the liberals, look for it on all fronts of this war with the Democrats. Democrats are reckless bastards who do not care one wit about this country.
Parse that sentence however you want, and tell me what part of it is false.
I don't think anyone ever considered the idea that Cheney 'sent' Wilson until Cheney folks started screaming that Wilson had lied about Cheney sending him.
As far as what Wilson 'wanted' people to believe, that is a rather comical approach on this story. One could just as easily say that, when McClellan said there was no involvement, he 'wanted' people to believe that neither Rove nor Libby told or confirmed for any reporter than Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA.
As I've said many times, I doubt either broke any law. But disclosing that his wife was at CIA [I know you know this, but if they didn't know her role at CIA, they were under an obligation to find out and confirm that it wasn't classified before talking about it to reporters] was a cheap move for those who are entrusted with significant roles in running this country.
Oh the plot thickens with the NYSlimes being involved in all things possible to hurt America's national security.
The Cheney folks never screamed about anything. The MSM (like Chris Matthews) presented it as "Cheney sent Wilson". Wilson wanted that idea out there and it succeeded.
It's not my fault that's how the MSM and dems operate.
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.