Delegation of Authority to Patrick Fitzgerald

Office of the Special Counsel ^ | 2/6/2004 | James B. Comey

[sirchtruth]

But just how accurately could you remember a phone call you had two years previous? A phone call among thousands of others with no special distinction.

Fine, I agree. But you don't say what happen "Specifically" if you don't remember, especially in a grand jury proceeding...He put the screws to himself.

[Anselma]

I heard yesterday (10/28/05), on NPR*, that Fitz got his first letter/order to hold a GJ, and about one month later, he asked for an expansion ot it (to be the one you quote?) What is the date for the letter you've posted here? Can we be certain it is the ORIGINAL order to Fitz???

* Not that I'm proud of listening to their prattle, but sometimes a germ of truth will emerge.

[Anselma]

So Sorry!!! I reread the posting, and in the 1st sentence it refers to the original order to Fitz: December 30, 2003; and thus this- whatever the date (but it may prove instructive) of this later letter, it is, indeed, an expansion of Fitz' original order.
How would you characterize it if Fitz' did NOT find any crime relating to his original order (limited to the purposeful & illegal outing of a COVERT agent) but wanted to pressure Republicans/Bush/Bushies so he could maneuver one of 'em into a perjury charge? Wouldn't that qualify as Malicious Prosecution, politically motivated? At the very least, if not politically motivated, then personally motivated (more time/more money/more fame for The Fitz)???
I smell a Dem, here.

[Anselma]

Jeepers, I'm getting sloppy in my old age; I see, on my 3rd reading of Comey's order to Fitz, that it WAS dated about 1 month after the original order, i.e. the first order was 12/30/03 and the EXPANDED and revised order was 2/6/04! So, NPR (ugh) was correct, in that the original order was revised/expanded about a month after Fitz began his "investigation" began!
Gosh, even I, untutored as I am, could find out in, oh, probably 5 minutes if I had the legal authority, whether or not Plame was a covert agent as specified in applicable law. But this guy, this Freaky Fitz, wanted to catch a Republican, and wanted to keep the heat on, and deflect attention away from the rogue CIA/Plame/Wilson (and the Kerry Krowd?). But who will prosecute the prosecutor?

[wotan]

Anselma,

#1. It doesn't matter whether there was an earlier letter. Comey was the "Acting Attorney General", like it or not. This was the grant of authority under which Fitzgerald was acting throughout most of his investigation and at the time of the indictment.

#2. Even under the first letter, Fitzgerald was granted the power of the Attorney General for the purpose of investigating the alleged unauthorized disclosure. The second letter appears to be only a clarification, probably requested by nit-picker Fitzgerald.

#3. Valerie Plame was, in fact, a covert agent. Those claiming otherwise are misinforming the American public. The definition of "covert agent" is from the subchapter of the US Code that contains the IIPA and Valerie Plame satisfies that definition. She had indeed served abroad as a covert agent within the last five years.

#4. There is also the 1917 Espionage Act to consider, which makes it a crime to disseminate classified information.

[Anselma]

Wotan, I respect your perspicacity, truly. But...
The original order from Comey to Fitzgerald was very, very narrow and limited to investigating only 2 things-
whether there was a violation of Title 50, US Code, Section 421 (Disclosure of the id of covert intel personnel) and Title 18, US Code, Section 793 (improper, "unauthorized" disclosure).
I admit that, yes, Fitz DID have the auth, from Comey, to expand his investigation into the 5 resulting counts of indictment (restricted to "Obstruction of Justice", "False Statements", and "Perjury") but SOMEONE should look into WHY and on what grounds could he go fishing any further, after he found that no underlying crime (the 2 Codes specified, above) occurred. It would be sorta like investigating Fitz' motives, even though he perhaps committed no crime,sorta like he did to Libby. If this had happened in a state GJ proceeding, the supervising judge would've (unless he was a crypto-Dem) stopped it, b/c it would've been challenged as "bad faith" on the part of the prosecutor. But this was a Federal GJ, and so we see this batch of perjury traps- highly indicative of Fitz' motives? This is why so many ham sandwiches are indictable-no supervision of Federal prosecutors. Pretty scary in a democracy.
Further, according to Andrew C. McCarthy (NRO), Bill Girtz (WashP), and the amici curiae (NBC, CBS, NYT, WashP, et al): there was no standing for the GJ b/c Plame was no covert agent within the 5-year period, b/c she had been outed twice before that! So, the press did know who she was?!

What I'd really like to know is: why do you say Plame was a covert agent in the 5 years preceeding (July 14, 2003)? Doesn't the fact of her having been outed (by the Ruskies and then, "inadvertantly"? by the CIA, in Cuba) nullify any later "covert" status? And let's not forget that Libby may yet claim he was, indeed, authorized.

[Anselma]

If the Niger forgery was associated with some leftist CIA cabal- not outside the realm of possibility- and not entirely done by a foreign power (France or Italy), then I think it could be investigated by a GJ, but I'm guessing Fitzgerald won't go there. Why, is the question. Perhaps another AG and another prosecutor would. Maybe it's just a can o' worms that might comprise other operations- the usual CIA blanket.

[Anselma]

Is that a real possibility- that you can revise your statement before you are charged? Can you consult with your atty in that case, or are you on your own? If true, seems Libby may be trying to get tried, so maybe he can do a "discovery" on Plame/Wilson? This thought is not original to me. Forgot where I read it.

[wotan]

Anselma,

Is there some other original order from Comey to Fitzgerald than the one posted on Fitzgerald's website? The Dec. 30th 2003 letter does not mention any specific laws.

The reason for prosecuting someone for perjury in this case without a finding that a law has been violated is that perjuries make it difficult to get to the truth about whether the law has been violated. This was the point that Fitzgerald was making with his lengthy, clumsy baseball example, if I remember correctly. To excuse perjuries is to allow the perjurer to tailor his testimony to fit the knowledge of the prosecutor rather than make him fear that he must tell the truth even when it is to his disadvantage. If Libby lies about one thing, he may have lied about others, but for which the prosecutor lacks the evidence to nail him.

I don't believe Fitzgerald "found no underlying crime had occurred". He failed to find that one had occurred (which is different) perhaps due to perjuries by one or more witnesses. Fitzgerald doesn't know whether a crime occurred. What he believes is that in investigating whether one had occurred, Mr. Libby lied repeatedly to him. And, so, Mr. Libby has been indicted.

Technically, Plame had covert status because she had been out of the country in the previous five years on assignment for the CIA to gather intelligence under cover with Brewster-Jennings, a CIA front company. I take this to be generally acknowledged, because, googling around, it seems that the riposte is to claim the cover wasn't very effective, the CIA didn't seem to take care about concealing her identity, the Russians knew about Valerie Wilson, etc., in short, a lot of hazy stuff that I imagine others would dispute, but would surely not interest Fitzgerald as much as the technical definition.

Here is an article about not how the Russians outed her, but about how the CIA suspected the Russians knew that Valerie Wilson was covert (not Valerie Plame).

Thank you for your comments. I am always pleased to find someone on FR who doesn't simply make menacing noises when a belief is questioned.

[Anselma]

Wotan-

I understand the seriousness of a perjury rap. To answer your first question, Yes, there is an original order from Comey to Fitzgerald, dated Dec. 30, 2003; at least that is what is on the opposition's website (a purported copy of Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby); I'm trying to take my own advice to Demented Dems, to look at both sides. That's why, when I Googled, I wound up on The Democratic Party website, where you'll see their version of the indictment. Please see paragraph 27 for the specified, original charges. Note also that, slyly, the next paragraph morphs into focusing on perjury/false statements/obstrn of justice but NOT on the original 2 charges. Lookie here: http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/full_text_of_li.php

Please also see the brief filed by amici curiae:
http://www.digtoe.com/inthenews/15%20page%20brief%20by%20Vt%20&%20BS.doc especially pgs 9,10 and pg 14 andpg 15 (warning of possible "bad faith" from Fitzgerald).

Now, I'll go to Fitzgerald's website and see if the indictments match.

PS: There is still the matter of Plame being outed inadvertently by the CIA, in Cuba; see amici curiae, above.

[Anselma]

Wotan-
I just visited the DOJ website, here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

and, again, (in Count I) paragraph 27, are the 1st 2 , original specifications. Here,slyly again, Fitzgerald has glossed over the fact that in his Dec 30, 2003 letter from Comey, the last 3 charges were absent. He had to go back to his good friend, Comey, to get an expanded investigation
into those last 3 specified charges (false statements, etc) which he received on, I believe, Feb 6, 2003.

---

Comey's letter to Fitzgerald dated Dec 30, '03 is pretty vague and several questions come to mind:

1) Is this only what Fitz wants us to see? That is, I would think that a more formal, specific (as to code violation) directive would come from the AG/Acting AG's office in order to form a GJ. Is there another sheet we're not seeing, so that Fitz and Comey can achieve their morph, from the 2 specific, original charges, to the achieved indictments? If so, what is the formal name for that type of document? Does anyone know?

2) Is it usual to add, as Comey does at the end, the directive that Fitzgerald would be "independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department"? Is this the basis of a Fed prosecutor's or Independent Prosecutor's awful power? Dumb question?

Thanks for your comments, also. You're very patient. I'm a Newbie and there's a lot I don't know yet about this blog stuff.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings Anselma:

Welcome to FR, we're glad you're here. The blanket of secrecy, while serving a legitimate purpose, when given the emerging facts, makes me uncomfortable.

First, “facts" supporting President Clinton's act of war, the bombing of Sudan's "chemical warfare facility;" were used to embarrass that sitting President when later, this was only an "aspirin factory."

Second, "facts" supporting President's Bush's act of war, the regime change in Iraq; were used to embarrass that sitting President when Joey Wilson opened his stupid pie hole.

The unaccountability of a governmental bureaucracy for producing accurate intelligence results, versus the secrecy required for national security? Yes, Fitzgerald's findings leave me very uncomfortable.

Cheers,
OLA

[wotan]

#1. The CIA has only an obligation to take "affirmative action" to conceal Plame's identity, which they did when they sent her abroad as an employee of Brewster-Jennings rather than as an employee of the CIA. That they were sloppy in their concealment in other areas may not matter. That sloppiness is shocking, but it doesn't mean they weren't trying to conceal her identity from, say, Aramco, nor does it imply that they were unsuccessful in doing so. Nor does it mean that Libby wasn't releasing her name in an attempt to punish Wilson for his comments on Niger.

#2. Not only were the last 3 charges absent from his original letter, even the first two were absent. I don't think Fitzgerald was being sly. I think he was just being a normal, competent prosecutor asking for clarification of Comey's original letter, which seems surprisingly nonspecific to me.

[Anselma]

Re your #1:
I maintain that "'affirmative action' to conceal Plame's identity" is diametrically opposed to
a) apparent "sloppiness" (exposure of her to Cubans) and
b) apparent "ineptitude" (among other things, not signing WoeJoe to secrecy re his Niger junkett, which would obviously lead to exposure of his wife).

By the mere fact that the CIA was unsuccessful in these regards, Val's cover- whether deep, light, NOC, or Burberry- was blown long before Libby leaked her name to any reporter. Then there's the interesting matter mentioned in the amici curiae, of CIA officials (whoops, almost wrote, "ofal")talking about Plame to "reporters" before Libby did.

And anyway, what kind of a lame brain is married to a well-recognized public official, works for the CIA, and wants to keep it a secret by driving to Langley 5 days a week?
At the skimpiest, we have: (former) Amb. Wilson ... wife, Val ... Val drives to Langley. Pretty transparent, wouldn't you say? The connecting dots are linear, not at all loose confetti.

Re your #2: You make a great point! Comey's original letter to Fitz lacked ANY specificity. For the general public to understand what Fitz' original directives were, we have to delve into the final, formal indictment- not what most of us are likely to do and not what MSM is likely to thoroughly report; but he never referrences those 2 original charges, again!!! Is it b/c "no true bill" was found by the GJ (so Fitz cannot, by law, referrence them?) or, more likely to my fevered mind, he chose or was told not to pursue them?