Libby's Lawyers Seek Papers on Plame's CIA Employment

Washington Post ^ | 2/1/06 | Carol D. Leonnig

[Cboldt]

We;ll have to agree to disagree.

I didn't speculate on the outcome. I laid out what I think represents the gist of the case; that being Libby's failure to disclose to investigators his personal inquiry to the CIA, the failure to disclose (to investigators) that during the timeframe in question, he knew Plame's status as a matter of fact.

Do you disagree with that characterization of the case? If so, have you read the indictment?

[angkor]

My posit above has to do with Libby's head, not Fitzgerald's head.

I've implied the questions and you haven't answered, so let me be direct:

1) Is it in your mind plausible that Fitzgerald didn't know whether Plame was or wasn't covert under the Identities Act within the first week of his investigation?

2) If Plame was not covert under the Identities Act, what was Fitzgerald's legal authority to continue his investigation?

3) Would it be ethical for Fitzgerald to have continued investigating a crime which he knew did not occur?

[SuziQ]

This is a great example for the MS of "be careful what you wish for"!

[angkor]

"Covert" being shorthand for "Nobody but you and some in the CIA know that you and the CIA have any relationship whatsoever."

Now I see where you're coming from. You don't know the meaning of "covert" under the Identities Act.

The bar is much higher than what you state above, both for the technical application of "covert status" and the manner in which the statute can be violated.

[Cboldt]

I sure don't defend Libby. But given the fact circumstance of the Libby indictment, I wouldn't want to attempt a malicious prosecution defense.

That being said, I think a malicious prosecution case could be brought with a straight face and within ethical boundaries.

3) Would it be ethical for Fitzgerald to have continued investigating a crime which he knew did not occur?

No. Once he has infomation that "closes the case," it is unethical to continue.

2) If Plame was not covert under the Identities Act, what was Fitzgerald's legal authority to continue his investigation?

The legal authority to investigate operates independently from the facts found. The legal authority is "find the facts, and if the facts indicate breaking the law, indict."

1) Is it in your mind plausible that Fitzgerald didn't know whether Plame was or wasn't covert under the Identities Act within the first week of his investigation?

About as plausible as President Bush adding gravitas to the investigation by similar utterances.

[Cboldt]

The [covert] bar is much higher than what you state above, both for the technical application of "covert status" and the manner in which the statute can be violated.

I know that. But I think you misconstrued my statment. Anybody seen walking into CIA HQ can't be "covert." "Covert" implies that, among other elements, to an "outside" observer, the person has no relationship with the CIA whatsoever.

Some additional elements include foreign location for the covert duty, and having been in that position withing the past 5 years.

But this isn't a leak case.

[Cboldt]

I meant to type, "I sure don't defend Libby Fitzgerald. But given the fact circumstance of the Libby indictment, I wouldn't want to attempt a malicious prosecution defense."

[Squat]

While those files are asked for how about asking for the Clinton FBI files Hillary gathered.

[UCANSEE2]

How about the female MSM reporter that was jailed for leaking Plame in her articles?

And a majority of the MSM's petitioned the government claiming that 'everyone' knew about Plame and therefore the female reporter had committed no crime?

It was enough that she was released from jail.

[UCANSEE2]

Would it be ethical for Fitzgerald to have continued investigating a crime which he knew did not occur?

Ethical or not, you must remember that this 'crime' is one the that DEMOCRATS claimed happened, and wanted charges brought against Libby, and him removed from office. (along with Cheney, Bush, Rice, their dogs, and any doghouses on the property)

[Cboldt]

You don't know the meaning of "covert" under the Identities Act.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512061/posts?page=39#39

[UCANSEE2]

Most people do not see where this case is going.
For a reason.

If Plame was not covert, then questions about how Wilson got to be a CIA spy, all expenses paid, no strings attached can be asked.

The big question that still goes unanswered is this:

What was Joe's company, the one that was in Niger waiting for him to show up to conduct an important transaction apparently to big for his underlings to deal with, selling?

What does Joe's company do? Why did he go to Niger twice, once during the Clinton administration, once during the Bush administration, each time with the same CIA spy deal?

Why have you never been told exactly what Joe's COMPANY does?

I know.

[UCANSEE2]

But this isn't a leak case.

True. When all is finally said and done you will be amazed a what kind of case it actually is.

Let's say it involves something 'yellow'.

[Cboldt]

How about the female MSM reporter that was jailed for leaking Plame in her articles?

Miller didn't publish any article relating to Plame. Miller was jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena for information. She and Cooper litigated "reporter proviledge" all they up to the Supreme Court.

And a majority of the MSM's petitioned the government claiming that 'everyone' knew about Plame and therefore the female reporter had committed no crime?

The friend of the court brief by 32 news agencies was submitted with a request that the Circuit Court of Appeals rehear the case. The argument was that it is wrong for an investogator to compel testimony when one element (covert status) is missing from the alleged offense ("outing the covert agent").

The brief argued that testimony cannot be compelled in that circumstance.

It was enough that she was released from jail.

Miller got out of jail by agreeing to, and testifying. She complied with the subpoena.

[angkor]

1) Is it in your mind plausible that Fitzgerald didn't know whether Plame was or wasn't covert under the Identities Act within the first week of his investigation?

About as plausible as President Bush adding gravitas to the investigation by similar utterances.

---

Now you see, that's an evasion. Fitzgerald was working from the Counterintelligence office at DoJ, which is very specifically charged with investigating and prosecuting intelligence cases (e.g. Ames).

Fitzgerald was tasked to answer the question: was the disclosure of Plame's CIA status a violation of the law. If so, who did it?

Hence, Fitzgerald's first duty would be to determine Plame's actual status. For all he knew, she could have been a receptionist or a secretary.

It defies common sense to assert that Fitzgerald would take one further step in his investigation without determining (a) Plame's status and (b) whether any law applied to her specific "outing".

Based on the paucity of indictments, Fitzgerald's verbal evasions, the widespread Beltway knowledge that Plame was CIA, her domestic assignment with CIA, the age of her children, etc., it seems very unlikely that Plame could meet the legal standard for "covert".

And Fitzgerald would have known this from the outset. The Identities Act is very clear and very specific. CIA management would know whether she met the terms of the Identities Act, and would certainly have disclosed that information to the DoJ Counterintelligence office.

Surely you don't assert that Fitzgerald had a legal mission to identify perjurers inside the Beltway, and this is the reason he continued his investigation despite knowing that his original case was no case at all?

The only other scenario here is that CIA management mislead and duped Fitzgerald as to Plame's status.

[VOA]

Libby's Lawyers Seek Papers on Plame's CIA Employment

Libby will walk.
Unless Plame, her CIA bosses and lawyers watched "24" to learn how
to alter the work records of a counter-terrorism agent.

It's gonna' be fun if the real records get leaked and reveal her
to be a lame-to-average field agent...and a desk jockey for at least
five years before the Libby incident.

But of course, a CIA operative of conservative convictions would
have too much moral fiber to engage in an illegal leak concerning
national security. Hence, we won't see the records.

[angkor]

"Why have you never been told exactly what Joe's COMPANY does? I know."

"Consulting", yes?

"I have a number of clients, and basically we help them with their sort of investments in countries like Niger," explains Wilson. "Niger was of some interest because it has some gold deposits coming onstream. We had some clients who were interested in gold.... We were looking to set up a gold-mine company out of London."

January 2001 Vanity Fair

[Cboldt]

About as plausible as President Bush adding gravitas to the investigation by similar utterances.

Now you see, that's an evasion.

How's this -- I think President Bush, the Attorney General's Office, and the Independent Investigator are all guilty of pretending covert status might attach to Plame.

This entire affair could have been dismissed the day after Novak's article, by one sentence by the President or the Attorney General - "I have checked Plame's status, and she is not covert." If done soon enough, it would have cut off Schumer and company's demand for independent counsel, would have saved all that cost, Miller wouldn't have gone to jail, etc.

Instead, he said "this is a serious matter and a serious investigation." Serious enough that he agreed to an independent prosecutor. Serious enough that to this very day, there is no "official" word from the DoJ or CIA (both of which work for the President) as to Plame's "covert" status.

Fitzgerald was tasked to answer the question: was the disclosure of Plame's CIA status a violation of the law. If so, who did it?

The grant of authority reads:

I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

Comey / Acting Att'y General / Dec. 30, 2003

... it seems very unlikely that Plame could meet the legal standard for "covert". And Fitzgerald would have known this from the outset.

Those who charged him with the task could have reached the same conclusion just as easily as he could.

Anybody under his gun has the power to assert that they won't cooperate because they view the prosecution as bogus. Libby could have refused to answer questions, except he was under orders from the President to cooperate with investigators. Do you think the President would permit a perjury trap to operate under his watch?

Surely you don't assert that Fitzgerald had a legal mission to identify perjurers inside the Beltway, and this is the reason he continued his investigation despite knowing that his original case was no case at all?

Like I said, I'm not inside Fitzgerald's head, and I'm not defending his prosecution of the investigation. I think it was a bogus investigation. I also think that more people than him have been and are now playing politics with the case.

But lying to investigators isn't excused on account of the investigation being bogus.

[frankjr]

""Niger was of some interest because it has some gold deposits coming onstream. We had some clients who were interested in gold.... We were looking to set up a gold-mine company out of London.""

'Gold' must be Joe's code word for 'yellowcake'.

"Uranium, livestock, onions, and cowpeas are the principal exports." http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Niger

[the Real fifi]

Lying here depends on whose version of the conversations one accepts as truthful, doesn't it?

As for Fitz, I think if he knew early on there was no way this case met the threshhold for an IIPA matter, it seems ripe for a misconduct charge. Because it then looks like he was calling and recalling all these people hoping he'd get them to contradict eachother or their earlier testimony, a classic perjury trap.

I have read the indctment numerous times and studied the various statements of the three reporters and if what is publicly known is presented to a judge I think the counts will fall:I think Russert did know about Plame and, therefore, his recollection of the conversation is as likely mistaken as Libby's is..and he weaseled in public about it. I think Andrea Mitchell, who worked for him, knew well before Libby did and told Russert.
As to Cooper, twice before his appearance before the gj, he charged the WH had a smear campaign going against Plame. His testimonhy is dubious because of obvious bias.

Miller's testimony is utterly incomprehensible and she made it obvious that she had some information about Plame ("Flame") in her notes from someone other than Libby and quite likely before they even spoke.

I would not place a big wager on his conviction.