Free Republic

You write above:

"What to do with emails like Foley's when they are written by someone you are responsible for is unclear."

"It sounds like Hastert a) delegated responsibility, b) didn't ask too many questions, and c) was glad that the whole thing went away."

"Most of us would have been no different."

I hope and pray that no one whose attitude is to avoid asking "too many questions" and to be "glad that the whole thing went away" is ever responsible for investigating anything to do with child molestation. Heaven forbid that that should be the reaction to something involving anyone's child -- especially my own!

Let's not be apologists for gladhanding politicians who are content to let evil occur so long as it "goes away" before an election. And let's hope that Hastert and anyone else who let this "go away" and didn't ask "too many questions" get what they richly deserve.

"I dont know if he is grasping at straws or anxious to keep the easy money rolling in."

Fitz is not making any money on this thing. He's a federal prosecutor, and get's his federal prosecutor's salary regardless of whether he's on this case.

In fact, since he heads up a U.S. Attorney's office and has other cases besides this one, this investigation only adds a huge amount to his workload without changing his pay.

(Under the now-expired independent prosecutor law, outside attorneys like Ken Starr were hired. They were paid by the hour....Fitzgerald isn't.)

Say what you will about Fitzgerald, but he's simply not in this for the money.

Fitzgerald was also looking into whether the law against knowing disclosure of classified information was violated.

Even if Plame didn't meet the standards for the Identities law, there could have been a violation of the law against knowing disclosure of classified information. I believe that Fitzgerald stated in the indictment that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA was classified -- if so, any disclosure by someone who knew (or recklessly didn't check whether) her employment was classified status would've violated the law.

Prosecutors have broad discretion to investigate crimes. Look at it this way. Suppose a classified briefing book is missing. You can't tell for sure whether it's been stolen (crime) or is just misplaced (accident). A prosecutor is given the latitude to ask everyone who works in the building, if he wants, whether they know anything about it. Short of taking the 5th (or another legal privilege, like 1st amendment protection), everyone's gotta testify in response to the subpoena.

Now, if a prosecutor knows that no crime has been committed and just subpoenas people for harassment, that's probably improper. (And if done for political harassment, or otherwise in violation of the law such as racial discrimination or something like that, the prosecutor could be in criminal trouble himself.) I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I bet anything a prosecutor does in "good faith" -- that is, in an honest belief that he is investigating a possible crime -- is legit.

In guessing whether Fitz was legitimately investigating a crime here, keep in mind that a three-judge panel found his subpoena of Miller (and Cooper, I think) to be valid. I can't remember exactly what they all said, but the key to their decision was that Fitzgerald's investigation was very serious and he needed that testimony. One of the judges, I do recall, described the disclosure of Plame's information "possibly illegal." It may not have been, but it certainly appears that there was a reasonable basis to investigate.

"The only reason this 'investigation' has gone on two years is to line Fitzgerald's pocket with free money for doing nothing."

I don't believe that's correct either in terms of money or "doing nothing." Fitzgerald is a salaried U.S. Attorney, who's been assigned this case as a special prosecutor. He's not charging attorney's fees to the government, like a private attorney would under the old independent prosecutor law. (This is what's producing the difference in expense between this prosecution and the independent prosecutors of the Clinton administration. The cost of this prosecution through the summer -- about 15 months -- was $700,000, I believe. The figure is posted various places.)

"From what I've read, half of Washington knew Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

Where did you read that? I've gone back through the articles saying such things. I have not been able to find a single person quoted -- not a neighbor, friend, anyone -- as saying "Yes, I knew before the Novak article that she was CIA."

There are neighbors quoted to the contrary, however -- saying that they didn't know. Moreover, we know that the CIA referred this case to the Justice Department and in doing so would have provided information on Plame's undercover status.

Unfortunately, the articles saying that "everyone knew" don't really deliver the goods. There may or may not be crimes here for other reasons, but I'd be careful relying on secondhand statements that "everybody knew" when nobody seems to have an example of such a person.

"Matt Cooper testified that he spoke to both Libby and Rove. Cooper testified that Rove said, 'Oh, you heard that too?'"

That's not quite right. Cooper testified that when Rove told him about Wilson's wife, it was the first time he'd ever heard about her: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=949040

Read the article that you posted. No one is saying that anyone provided "code books." Quite the contrary, in fact. The article takes the position that, if you don't provide "code books" or one of the other specifically-mentioned items in the Espionage Act, there's no crime.

What I've highlighted is the other language of the Espionage Act (which is quoted in the article ). It prohibits providing "documents," "notes," and any other "information" related to national defense. I still believe that if someone provides any "information" related to national defense, they can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act -- not just those who provide the "code books" or other specific documents that no one claims changed hands here.

And, as stated before, I believe that's the way it should be. I don't want anyone who shares secret national defense-related "information" to get away with it on a technicality. The Espionage Act says that any secret national defense "information" is protected -- that's a better approach than trying to divine an "intent" of the law that would let those who share protected "information" to claim that the law doesn't really apply. One might be happy with the result of that approach in this case, but it's short-sighted as well as questionable legal analysis.

In quoting my post, you ask "who said 'Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover'?"

You seem to have deliberately ignored the opening portion of my sentence, "Let's assume a situation where someone like Valerie Plame....."

My points were, and are, that (1) the Espionage Act is on its face much broader than the specific "code books," etc. that are discussed in it, and (2) that's the right way for it to be. I WANT "documents," "notes," and other "information" related to national defense to be protected from disclosure, which is just the way that the Espionage Act is written. And, just as I stated in my original post, IF "someone like" Valerie Plame IS in fact undercover on WMD issues, I want that information protected along with the "code books."

Now, do you have any response to my actual post, rather than just taking out a portion of a sentence?

As quoted above, the Espionage Act prohibits the disclosure of any "document," "writing," or "note" which is "related to the national defense."

It likewise prohibits disclosure of any "information relating to the national defense."

To focus on the more specific prohibitions of the Act, like disclosing "code books," is probably incorrect under the law and very bad policy. When you read a law, you have to read all of the words. This one clearly prohibits more than just the specific "code book"-type information from being disclosed -- you'd have to ignore the clear language of the statute to conclude only the specifically-named documents can't be shared.

And it seems to me to be extremely bad policy to conclude otherwise. Let's assume a situation where someone like Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover. Does anyone really want to say that it's just fine to disclose that person's identity even though the disclosure is merely "information" related to national defense, and not a "code book" related to national defense?

This analysis is good. If Libby got information that didn't reasonably sound classified, and had no reason to know it was classified, then based on my understanding of the law he can't be prosecuted for revealing classified information.

The only problem would be if he had reason to know that the very fact that she worked at CIA was classified (is that possible? I don't know) and still revealed that fact. That might be a stretch, but since I'm a lawyer I engage in these worst-case analyses all the time.

On all of this, the question of whether Fitzgerald has an "inside" witness becomes paramount. That person could say things like, "There were concerns expressed in a meeting/email/etc. about revealing the fact that she worked at CIA, but it was decided to do so anyway......"

"I couldn't say how disgusted I am about all this "spy" stuff. when do all these people have time to do the people's business? Bunch of egotistical, self important morons if you ask me. Who cares? ---except they're ripping off the American taxpayer trying to convice us they're important to our survival. Better think again."

Uh, I've gotta disagree with that. Plame apparently worked in the area of analyzing or detecting other countries' involvement with nuclear weapons. Is that not important to you? It's important to me, and should be important to all of us. (And if anyone undermined her work, that should also be important to all of us -- whoever that was.)

"FIRST, decide aye or nay whether Valerie was an agent UNDER COVER. I know that she was ON THE COVER of a national magazine w/her well-known blabber mouthed husband, Joe Wilson. Oh, she had on sun glasses and wore a scarf over her head? OKAY...'under cover'"

She and Wilson only did that some time after the Novak article identified her as a "CIA operative." At that point, if she had cover, it was already blown.

An example: There's a formerly secret bomb shelter for Congress in West Virginia, at the Greenbrier Resort. The secret came out, and Congress immediately gave up the notion of ever using it. Now it's on the brochures for the Greenbrier, as a tourist attraction. Those brochures are not "blowing the cover" of the formerly secret bomb shelter.

You ask: "Could someone please how anyone could be indicted for 'outing' Plame when her husband (Wilson) bragged about his 'secret agent' wife on his web page some years ago?"

I don't believe that it was claimed that Wilson stated on his web page that she worked for the CIA or as a secret agent there -- only that he listed her maiden name. (See http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110004094)

I honestly don't think that is what protecting covert status is about. Assuming she was covert, it wasn't her maiden name that was secret. (Someone could get that by doing various sorts of background checking, I think.)

The bigger question, it seems to me, is who first publicly stated that she worked for the CIA (as a secret agent)? If she wasn't really covert, maybe none of this matters. But if she was, then the question is who blew her covert status -- not who blabbed about her maiden name (which would be known to a lot of people, and pretty easily found out).

Look, I'm just asking a simple question. It doesn't answer my question to say the same thing over and over -- ie, people say that it was "the worst kept secret" or people say that "all the neighbors knew." We all already knew that.

My question, which remains unanswered, is why out of all of this "worst kept secret" status and knowledge on the part of "all of the neighbors," has not a single person been identified who knew her CIA status beforehand? (And why, instead, are the only published accounts from neighbors to the contrary -- people saying that they didn't know?)

I still don't get it. As I said in my post, I'm aware that some people say that "all the neighbors knew" and similar things. If there are so many of these people, where are they? Or even one of them?

Articles have quoted non-neighbors (like the former CIA guy who worked with her a long time ago) who said that neighbors knew. But as far as I can tell they've never identified or quoted any neighbors saying that they knew. On the other hand, it looks like Washington Times and NY Times have quoted the neighbors on each side as saying that they didn't know:

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050715-121257-9887r

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ex=1278216000&en=06e4601f703cf17a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

By the way, in looking at the Washington Times article, the CIA guy goes a little fuzzy, saying "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee." That's supposition -- "Most people....I think....would have thought." Not to be repetitive, but......where are the neighbors who knew?

You say that "most people she was acquainted with in Washington were well aware that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." What is the source of that information? I don't think I've seen anyone quoted anywhere -- neighbors, family, anyone -- as saying "Yes, I knew she worked for the CIA before the article." Is there anything like that out there? If not, I wouldn't rely too much on this argument. (By the way, I'm aware of lots of people saying "everybody knew." But is there anyone who's been revealed as saying "I knew"?)

So none of us can judge Brown's performance because we haven't been head of FEMA?

Does that mean none of us can judge the president's, Congress', or a governor's or mayor's performance?

And of the 160+ previous disasters, do those make Brown a success in light of Katrina? Isn't that like saying that my gas tank is a success when I drive it 151 times and for 150 times it's fine, but then it explodes on no. 151? Sure, that's a failure rate of less than 1%, but not many people will want to buy that car.

I don't find this stuff disturbing, and you didn't have to bother "smuggling" it out of anywhere -- the material from the pamphlet is right there on CAIR's website.....

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=knowYourRightsPocketGuide

You've got a point, up to a point.

My figures were a bit off. Last year LC's budget was about $80 million. I haven't done your brand of sleuthing, but their annual report shows that rents, donations, and investment earnings formed the vast bulk of income. There's about $2 million in "other income." It's possible that could be entirely government grants. If so, approximately 2.5% of Marsalis' salary is from government dollars.

"How the heck can someone like Wyton Marsalis make less than the no-talent 50 cent? These figures don't make sense.
Not that I care for the music of 50 Cent, but at least my tax dollars don't go towards his salary.

I suspect you can't say the same about Wynton Marsalis."

Lincoln Center is a non-profit with a $30 million annual budget. It takes in about that much in contributions annually, and has a nest egg of about $150 million in investments. Marsalis' salary isn't paid by anyone's taxes.