Captain's Quarters -

I am confused. Armitage admits being the man. Was Libby lying to protect Armitage pre confession days? If not,why did he lie,I guess I never have understood this case well?

While I agree with the Captain that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious convictions, one has to wonder WHAT justice did Libby's faulty memory OBSTRUCT? The Inquisitorial Prosecutor knew before he spoke a word to Libby who the leaker was, Armitage, yet pressed on without a case in order to find a crime. Moreover all of the witnesses at trial had conflicting memories, so why is Libby the fall guy, except that Fitzgerald hates Cheney for some unknown reason (maybe the Justice Dep't review?)

The justice system worked pretty well here.

A covert agent's identity was leaked to the press by three members of the White House. (Armitage and Libby spoke to Novak and Miller on the same day. The potential crime -- identifying a covert agent -- did not occur when Novak published his column, but when the men passed this classified information on to reporters who did not have clearance to receive such information.)

The CIA asked for an investigation. Fitzgerald was assigned. In the course of the investigation, Libby lied to him.

Here's one example:

-One of Libby’s claims is that he learned that Plame was a CIA agent from Tim Russert.

-Russert testified that he did not tell Libby this and that he didn’t know who Plame was until several days after the conversation when Novak’s column was published.

-Marc Grossman, a State Department official; Cathie Martin, Vice President Cheney's spokeswoman; and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, all testified that they had conversations with Libby about Plame working for the CIA prior to his conversation with Russert.

-Libby testified that he did see a note from Cheney which said Plame was a CIA agent prior to his conversation with Russert, but then “forgot” about the content.

Perjury is a hard crime to prove, but that's pretty clear-cut.

So Libby is convicted of perjury. Cap'n does a good job of laying out the sentencing guidelines for this case. Pretty cut-and-dry.

So I'm still left wondering why Rove hasn't been punished for being one of the leakers, especially since the president promised the leakers would be dealt with severely and he broke his security agreement by passing classified information to those who were not cleared to receive it.

If we can give amnesty to millions of illegals who have broken our laws why not amnesty for Libby?

It occurred to me that Fitzgerald was obstructing justice when he learned that Armitage was the leaker. Pursuing the investigation after that fact was known could arguably be characterized as provocative, harrassment, and a set-up.

My understanding of Libby's testimony indicated that it was a toss-up as to who had the worse memory, Libby or those he talked to. Added to that, consider motive, opportunity, and means. The reporters represented a biased media and had the motive to be guilty of that which they accused libby. They were after Bush, Rove, and Cheney at the time and all they could get was a tee-shirt with Libby's picture on it.

The entire investigation was politically motivated and a sham.

Clinton was impeached for perjurying himself.

What was the underlying crime he was lying about?

It occurred to me that Fitzgerald was obstructing justice when he learned that Armitage was the leaker.

Vet, Armitage and Libby leaked Plame's ID on the same day. Each of those acts were the potential crime.

>>>The justice system worked pretty well here.

Agreed. Armitage was the (admitted) initial leaker, he did it to lash out at the WH, and got away with it. Wilson took steps to out himself and his wife, and probably committed perjury before Congress - she seems clearly to have done so. Rove - like Libby and a CIA spokesman - confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA when asked about it by reporters following up on Armitage's leak. Libby goes to jail. Fitzgerald says in court that there is no underlying crime, that is irrelevant, then in sentencing documents asserts that there was one.

Yeah, the justice system worked just about as well as I might have hoped.

By any chance, Tom, are you calling also for prosecution of the individuals who have leaked information about NSA wiretapping, intelligence detention facilities, or the recently uncovered covert action plans dealing with Iran? Or are those leaks of code word level information not really on your radar, since they didn't gore your political ox? Just wondering...

We have a man convicted of lying on an investigation to find out how a covert CIA agents name was released (treason) ultimatly leading to the duisruption of a spy terror network (Brewster Jennings & Associates) that looked into nuclear threats from terrorist during a time of war. Also we have people wanting to make excuses for this fall guy taking 30 months to protect higher ups from charges of treason. When you have Republican candidates defending a pardon of this man you understand the make up of the Republican party today. They are hopeless and will remain so until their base starts putting their country ahead of their party and holds these criminals up to a much higher standard.

Guys you need to get your news from mulltiple sources. You are being whitewashed and lead by the nose from the single source propaganda machine you listen to. open you eyes man you're making excuses for someone covering for treason. What could you be thinking???

By any chance, Tom, are you calling also for prosecution of the individuals who have leaked information about NSA wiretapping, intelligence detention facilities, or the recently uncovered covert action plans dealing with Iran?

If the White House wanted to go after those leakers, then I have no problem with it. I haven't called for it because I think (and the Iran one would be an exception) you can make a case that the American people had a right to know these things were going on.

In the Plame case, there was no good reason why anyone should know she was a CIA agent. She didn't suggest her husband for the trip for her husband, and even if she did, the White House could have just stuck with rebutted the substance of Wilson's op-ed. His wife's involvement is really irrelevant.

Exactly what justice was obstructed?
Did anybody get off because Libby was not truthful?
Is there a conviction that got away on account of Libby?

And they didn't have a right to know that nepotism was underlying Wilson's assignment to go look for uranium trafficking in Niger?

Do you think the public would have a right to know if Dick Cheney appointed his wife to lead the search for WMD precursors in Iran?

If not, then how is Armitage's leak about Wilson/Plame different?

And what about the leak of monitoring of suspect financial transactions that the NY Times broke about a year ago - monitoring that the NY Times had been clamoring for, and which our European allies thought was a valuable program, until the Times declassified it all on its own? You support that leak too as something the public had a need to know?

Hey, if the Abu Ghraib terrorists can claim torture because panties were placed on their pointy little heads, then I absolutely agree that the least the mean jailers can do for Paris is to release her for crying! After all, haven't both Abu Ghraib guys and the Gitmo guys both been boo-hooing it up for years now, and they've managed to convince a large part of the world that it was all a big misunderstanding. At least Paris never shot at anyone or tried to blow them up.

Thus far there is no proof, other than Plame's own testimony which changes every time she opens her mouth before any Congressional hearing, that Valerie Plame was a covert agent.

Joe Wilson lied through his teeth to protect his Niger money machine.

Oh and Sandy Berger give up his law license to protect the fact that he stole stuff from the National Archives yet for some strange reason Libby committed treason and is going to jail for 30 months for committing perjury on not remembering the exact words related to another case which involved Richard Armitage outing a non-proven covert who claims to be a covert CIA agent.

Tom Shipley simply hates Republicans so any argument from him is unreasonable to the point of insane. But he will continue to comment here anyway to sustain his insanity.

Let her rip Tom Shipley I love the way Repugs drive you crazy.

Syn,

Fitzgerald's case summary states.

A) Plames status was covert

B) That, while stationed at Langley, she traveled overseas with NOC cover.

C) That the CIA was taking affirmative action to conceal her employment with the company.

If the perjury statutes can't be interpreted outside their political context-- leaking on Iran is ok to prosecute, helping the NYT on rendition is forgivable, blaming Tim Russert instead of Cheney is a slam-dunk conviction-- then the system would be so arbitrary as to violate the 4th Amendment guarantee of due process.

For that same concern for apolitical justice I fail to see why a two-three year sentence option should be cut down to a fine because the convicted is well-connected.

Ed,

Commute it, including the fine, to EXACTLY the sentence Sandy Berger got.

Captain Ed.
Thanks for taking another look. This one's more balanced. I was beginning to think you and Shipley, above, were justifying this lynching. Start to fininsh that's what it's been. No amount of procedural jargon and blind-faith testimony to the purity of the legal system, in other words, obfuscation from you, can change the reality. An impartial jury in the District of Columbia? Where's your deed for the Brooklyn Bridge? By the way, I'd like to see your law school practice brief on the Dred Scott decision.

Exactly what justice was obstructed?
Did anybody get off because Libby was not truthful?
Is there a conviction that got away on account of Libby?

Posted by: George

George,

I thought you guys cared about the rule of law. Does it bother you at all that a covert operation used to track WMD cover was blown? Don't you think SOME ONE should be held accountable. I do. And Scooter's lies blocked us from the truth.

Clinton was impeached for perjurying himself.

What was the underlying crime he was lying about?

Tom there was a civil lawsuit against Clinton. He lied under oath about that. You do believe that everyone has a right to have their complaint heard in court, don't you?

And as perjury is such a serious crime, do you think Clinton should have been removed from office?

If Armitage admitted to the real leaking of Valire (I am bound For Hollywood) Plame, then why was he not prosecuted? Because, Val was not covered under the statue. Now CIA HQ may have thought she was undercover but and this is the main but, she was not covered under the law. If her identity was given to the media or anyone for that matter then for someone to be prosecuted for that they would have to go to the law. Fitzgerald did that and correctly determined that she was not covered and that Armitage could not be charged. The real question is when did Fitzgerald determine this. I say it is fairly obvious that he determined this very early and surely before any testimony by Libby. This is why Libby’s sentence should be commuted if not a full pardon.

At the end of the day it was a political prosecution pure and simple.

If Armitage admitted to the real leaking of Valire (I am bound For Hollywood) Plame, then why was he not prosecuted?

WIld Bill,

Please refer to my previous post:

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 7, 2007 10:41 AM

Does it bother you at all that a covert operation used to track WMD cover was blown?

Not in the least once you consider that supposedly covert agent did in fact recommend her husband for the Niger trip and then lied about it to congress. Furthermore, that supposed covert agent aided her husband in using the cover of her office to launch a partisan political attack on the President during a time of war.

Any damage caused was caused by Plame herself and if anyone deserves prison time for this fiasco, it is Valerie.

And, what "show trial" are you comparing this to?

Bush is incompetent. My guess is that Libby will go to jail. And, if he's "lucky," like Paris Hilton; will get an early discharge. Though all Paris served was under 48 hours. She's got a "medical condition." And, it trumped the insane judge who put her in jail; when NOBODY else goes to jail for her infractions. But? Headlines are headlines.

We've got quite a record going, here. LBJ, Nixon, Carter and both Bush's are clueless about getting the American people to "come along."

If you watched Fred Thompson on Hannity; you'd have noticed this in his 7-minute segment; which just flew by! I usually groan at 7-minute segments. NOT HERE!

Top on Fred Thompson's list is the part where he INFORMS the American People. Where he let's policies REGISTER. That dictator mode button never worked. Which is WHY the boob in the White House can't get to first base. (Of course, his family keeps cashing in. And, he's grown into the billions, now, on riches; where other companies NOT bailed out by the Saud's, go bust.) Oh, well. Nobody ever said love or war was fair.

There was an Ann Coulter segment, with Hannity, that was priceless. (Since Thompson split his impeachment vote against Clinton. For, obstruction. But against, pergery. And, this brought Ann's hackles up. I loved her follow-up line. (Because it points to the problems within the social conservatives movement. Not the reverse.)

Ann said that politicians who get elected in OTHER THAN BLUE STATES, are like Fred Thompson. "They just do enough conservative stuff to get elected." Gee. People's hearts aren't into committing suicide. Who knew?

Anyway, Captain, I'm pleased as punch at your coverage on the immigration bill. Where all Harry Ried got was 33 votes.

Educating politicians. Most of the time the lessons come too late. On the other hand? The GOP would be in the toilet for picking a loser like Bush. He may even be dumber than Warren Harding.

Fitzgerald did that and correctly determined that she was not covered and that Armitage could not be charged.

He did? Fitzgerald's summary lays out that she was covered under the statute. It says:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7-10 trips overseas).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

In his summary, he clearly lays out that she did fit the statute. The only reason left for not convicting is that he didn't have evidence that they knew she was a covert agent when they leaked her identity.

Plame, Covert? She and hubby were well known Democratic party activists and contributors. Covert? Not hardly, not on the coctail-magazine-photo/interview-look-me-up-in-Who's Who circuit. If she's CIA's standard for covert agents, we're in serious trouble as a nation. BTW, where's the indictment for her amnesia during Congressional testimony? Covert? Here's covert: Fitzgerald et.al. lynched Libby. A lynching was the best they could do. Contemptible. If that's the DOJ's standard for prosecutors, we are indeed in serious trouble as a nation.

BTW, on Paris Hilton, I know something about California jails. IMO she was released because her presence in the jail was too disruptive due to all the attention. It simply cost the jail too much to keep her.

I once had a client with incredible health problems who was sentenced to 30 days in jail for drunk driving. He had to take something like 10 heavy-duty prescription drugs a day just to stay alive, one to several times a day for each.

I told him not to worry and trust me, then took him with ALL the pills he had to take for his 30-day sentence to the Merced County jail, and a declaration from his doctor about the likely consequences if he missed too many of the pills (death was a significant possibility).

Then I showed the doctor's declaration and the grocery bag of pill vials to the admitting sheriff's sergeant. He read the declaration, examined some of the vials, grimaced, and told my client to come into his office and sit on a chair for 30 minutes.

I waited outside. When the half hour was up, the sergeant and my client came out with a paper signed by the sergeant saying that my client had served his time.

There was no way the jail could handle the necessary care for my client, taking him out of his cell to the infirmary several times a day, let alone safely store all those prescriptions. And the jail could have been civilly liable for my client's death, stroke or other injury from not giving him the medicine he needed to stay alive.

So they let him go after half an hour. I knew this in advance. It is not all surprising that the jail here kicked Paris Hilton out.

Amazing what you can get with a kangaroo court in a city full of whackjobs.

It appears as though there are some here who are not as well versed in this case as others. I noticed a name that used to plague Wizbang is not infesting here. Sad. Reconstructed notes and a prosecuter suborning perjury from Tim Russert is hardly reason to send Libby to jail. The fact the defense was not able to present to the jury the fact that no one had been charged with the oringinal offense will win this case on appeal. All I will say here is look to Chuck Schumer to see what is happening in this matter. He is scum.

Oh, and BTW, Cap'n, that Catholic gullibility you tend to demonstrate quite frequently is very much in evidence here again.

Amicus,

Yes, covert.

To quote Ian Hunter, I think I liked it better when the world was round.

Amicus,

Yes, covert.

To quote Ian Hunter, I think I liked it better when the world was round.

Tom--Thanks for clearing things up. So, then, you do approve of lynchings.

Yeah, you got me dude. You're good.

Clinton was impeached for perjurying himself.

What was the underlying crime he was lying about?

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 7, 2007 10:44 AM

The underlying crime was sexual harassment. Or is that only a crime when Republicans do it?

CheckSum,

Libby lied in testimony that directly impeded an investigation about whether or not a covert agent was intentionally outed.

Clinton lied in testimony that did not directly relate to the crime he was being investigated for.

My point is, when people ask "what's the underlying crime in Libby's case," they should realize there's more of an underlying crime in that case than in Clinton's. And Clinton was impeached for his actions.

Amnesty for everyone ... except taxpayers - for the stupid lot, a hike would be more appropriate. USA is slowly transtioning to a lawless state where the cartels are running the show . Those with any integrity (however misplaced at time) must be punished by the system. While CNN comments about the Russian oligarchy ... nice try to divert the stink - busying itself issuing weekly releases about what the so called secret agencies are planning or doing - in plain daylight.

I do not get what secrets are we talking about - most "friendly" nations as well as the Religion Of Peace already have access to all so-called secrets - if the leftist did not already passed them for free, the president probably sold them for change (yesterday to the Saudis, today to the russians - little time left to cache those cheques - I wonder who might be tomorrow ...)

I don't believe that any crime should be prosecutable until underlying crimes have been prosecuted to the extent possible. That is a rational philosophy as it prevents rogue prosecutors for skimming through crimes and their desendants until he finds a criminal he wants to prosecute.

In this case, the original crime is that an agent, classified as covert by the CIA, intentionally jeopardized her status by participating in a public debate in the most public manner possible. Covert agents are not permitted to intentionally insert themselves into the international spotlight because it renders their covert nature moot. Training a covert agent and maintaining the secrecy of their status is a time-consuming and expensive process.

If, on the other hand, Fitzgerald found that Plame was not covert, and that the revelation of her employment with the CIA was not therefore a crime, then Libby's perjury would have been an original crime, assuming that it rose to the standard.

I can't see any serious person who knows the facts of this case feeling sorry for Valerie Plame. She jumped into the big game with both feet. Any compromise of her status lies at her feet.

muirgeo wrote, "I thought you guys cared about the rule of law. Does it bother you at all that a covert operation used to track WMD cover was blown? Don't you think SOME ONE should be held accountable. I do. And Scooter's lies blocked us from the truth.

We most definitely care about the rule of law. We also care that it is applied with reason. Scooter never should have lied. Why did he lie? It served no purpose. On the flip side, it also appeared to have no effect on the investigation. Fitzgerald knows this. It should be reflected in the sentencing.

No covert operation was blown as you claim. But if one were, and if you actually cared about accountability as you imply, wouldn't you want the leaker to be held accountable? Libby wasn't the leaker.

When there is a crime, do we prosecute the criminal or the bystander who can't get his story straight?

Covert agents are not permitted to intentionally insert themselves into the international spotlight because it renders their covert nature moot.

She did not insert herself into the international spotlight. Plame was not in the spotlight until Novak published his column. He knew she was a CIA agent because Armitage and Rove told him so. That same day, Libby IDed Plame as a CIA agent to Judith Miller.

That's how her cover was blown. That's why three members of the white house were investigated for committing the crime of outing a covert CIA agent.

Fitzgerald's case summary states.

A) Plames status was covert

Tom,

Really, just because Fitzgerald stated it in court does not make it so. He said that so it would not look so blatantly political. He did not prove that point in court. Tom, baby doll Val was not covered under the law.

Tom, baby doll Val was not covered under the law.

OK, Bill,

what do you base this belief on?

I base my belief that she was covered under the law on this:

Here's the law's definition of covert:

(4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

In Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald states that Plame's employment status was classified.

Also, according to the summary of Fitzgerald's investigation, in which he spoke to the CIA about Plame's employment status:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7-10 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

Now, Fitzgerald didn't indict Armitage or Rove in outing her because he did not have evidence that they knew she was covert and intentionally outed her (a requisite of the charge). He could not indict Libby on this charge, but he also could not clear him because of his obstruction of justice.

So, I'll ask again, what do you base your belief on?

Tom,

Let me direct you to the person who wrote the law and would have the greatest insight as to its’ application. That would be Victoria Toensing and her testimony before congress.

As Andrea Mitchell stated, "everyone" knew that Plame was CIA. And there's more. Victoria Toensing is the attorney who drafted the IIPA. She, too, testified before Waxman's committee, and she had handy the Senate Report on the IIPA, that spelled out what the Act was intended to cover. Referring to page 16 of the Senate Report Toensing stated (under oath): "Notably, the legislation limited coverage of U.S. citizen informants or sources (agents) also to situations where they "reside and act outside the United States." Toensing then quoted Joe Wilson's (self) absorbing autobiography to show that Plame had returned to the US in 1997 and had never "resided and acted" overseas again.

Credit
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/fitzgerald_plame_cia_director.html

Ed,

You have really kicked the bees nest.
Thanks

Wild Bill,

Did you not just see what I posted.? Fitzgerald's summary shows that according to Plame's CIA records, she traveled overseas 7-10 times on CIA business always under cover, either official or NOC.

Clinton lied in testimony that did not directly relate to the crime he was being investigated for.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at June 7, 2007 1:37 PM

Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment. He lied when asked questions about other work place sexual activities that may have shown a pattern of sexual harassment (questions asked under a law that he signed).

Yeah, not related?

But more on point. Fitzgerald saying Plane was a covert CIA agent, doesn't make it so. Fitzgerald said Libby was guilty of 5 counts. He was only able to prove 4. He didn't even try to prove any covert status. No one was indited for outing anyone, much less proven so. (unlike Clinton, who was Impeached).

Oh yeah, and the CIA saying she was covert doesn't make it so either. They did let Novak publish her name and employment status. Yes, they asked him not to, but they didn't stop him. They had that power IF she was covert. They didn't, she wasn't.

Shipley;

Plame was brought in from covert status years earlier as a result of Aldrich Ames giving her up, along with every agent we had in Russia at the time. The law against outing agents didn't apply to her because of the time lapse between when she was brought back to Langley and when the Plame leak occurred.

Quit drinking the kool-aid and quoting Kos talking points that have no basis in fact. Even if Fitzgerald gave up the information on the same date as Libby, which is not true, the basis for the investigation ceased to exist at the time Fitzgerald knew the truth.

The whole Libby case reminds me of "To Kill a Mocking Bird."

Vet66,

The statute says that an agent who has been stationed or worked oversees within 5-years is covered.

CIA records show that since 2002, Plame had traveled overseas on CIA business under either official or NOC cover.

She absolutely was covert by the statutes standards.

Your computation of the approriate sentencing level is not entirely accurate. You also cite a very early assessment from Ms. Merritt (March '07), which has changed substantially since then, as noted here and elsewhere, and which she also updated once the Probation Dept. had officially weighed in on the applicable guidelines.

Before details of the Probation Dept.'s recommendations came out, Ms. Merrit put the sentence range, with enhancements, at 24 - 33 months. The Probation Dept.'s recommendations were actually substantially lower, per TalkLeft:

While the Government is asking for 30 to 37 months, the U.S. Probation Department calculated his sentencing guidelines at 15 to 21 months, and advised the Judge that departures from the Guidelines, which would result in a lower sentence, should be considered.

In this context, Fitzgerald's production of the "Unclassified Summary" of Plame's CIA status was intended to bolster the perceived legitimacy of his investigation and the putative seriousness of an alleged, uncharged underlying crime -- and to minimize the inconvenient possibility that there was no underlying crime at all. While Judge Walton may have opted for the low end of the Prosecution's 30-37 months, his response when the Defense objected to Fitzgerald's proffer of unchallenged assertions, and material which the Judge himself had excluded from Libby's trial, was both emblematic and stunning. He essentially faulted the Defense for not attempting to initiate discovery -- in their sentencing memoranda!

The best case explanation, IMO, is that Judge Walton did not want to be tarred by partisans of any stripe for using his discretion in deciding Libby's sentence. Unfortunately, that's precisely what the Defense was asking him to do, and in rejecting their argument, he essentially ended up rejecting the underlying PSR calculations as well. Having accepted the mandatory premise put forward by Fitzgerald, he couldn't very well reject the conclusions which derived from it -- without sliding right back into discretionary territory or looking like he was delivering a slap to the Prosecutor, something he has proven loathe to do all along.

I can see supporting a possible commutation rather than a pardon -- but for additional, perhaps even more compelling reasons, than your own. The question of Libby's guilt or innocence has always been transcended by larger constitutional questions raised by this investigation and prosecution, from start to finish. I won't attempt to list them here, except to note that trial court policy is to avoid addressing constitutional issues where possible, which means that without an appeal, they will never be addressed at all. A Libby pardon would short that process out and would ultimately represent a de facto endorsement of DoJ/Prosecutorial practices which would horrify everyone, absent the political blinders that so reduce our vision now.

I'm one of a fairly small number of conservative legal pundits (along with, for example, Patterico and NRO's Andy McCarthy) who have refused to condemn the Fitzgerald prosecution or to proclaim Libby's innocence.

But I remain troubled by some parts of the case, and I was sufficiently intrigued by Mr. Otis' commutation idea that I've sketched out a speech that Dubya could give when announcing it.

If Libby can persuade Judge Walton to grant him bail pending appeal at next Thursday's hearing, that wouldn't be necessary. Ditto if Judge Walton denies bail pending appeal (as seems likely), but the DC Circuit overrules him (which seems possible). If Libby cannot secure bail pending appeal, however, the amount of political pressure on the Bush Administration to consider some sort of pardon or lesser relief will become enormous and very urgent.

The beauty of a commutation is that Dubya could make very clear that he's not trying to condone or excuse what Libby has done, and that he's not trying to prejudge how Libby's appeals should turn out. Indeed, Libby could continue to pursue his appeals based on the (hypothetically) un-commuted fine, two-year supervised release, and other disabilities associated with a felony conviction. If the appeals are successful, nothing further need be done; if not, then a full pardon could be considered.

Shipley;

Get with the program. None other than Victoria Toensing, co-author of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 has stated that the leaking of Plame's name was not a crime because she was not a covert officer undercover overseas in the previous 5 years as defined by the act, and in fact was a desk jockey in the CIA headquarters for longer than that.

In a 2003 follow-up column, Novak wrote: "The disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency was not much of a secret" and that it "was well-known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

Libby wasn't the first to know about leaking Plame, it was Woodward, by his own words. And Fitzgerald knew about it within a week of indicting Libby.

Your sources are wrong!

Vet66,

Who's more of an expert on Plame's status and job at the CIA? The CIA or Vitoria Toensing?

I'm siding with the CIA on this one.

Tom,

You have fallen for the oldest trick in the CIA book the classic misdirection. Was she or was she not. Of course, you lefties don't think that the CIA is capable of telling the truth. Amazing how you think they are telling the truth now.

Only the spooks know for sure..........

Libby should have done what Clinton did during his Impeachment testimony,

"I don't know"
"I don't remember"

about 150 times and he would not have been convicted of
the crime without a crime.

Liberals don't give a damn about the truth or what's right or wrong.Tom boy proves this with his post and his silence concerning Berger,NYT,WashPost leaking or stealing classified information.

There's a sentence in Update I that I can't parse: "May Libby can go for a sobutation instead."

Who is the first person we know of who said he believed Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and then made his belief public?

David Corn.

If Fitzgerald is certain that Plame was "covert" as defined by law, why didn't he have Corn arrested?

Frank,

Because the statute protecting covert agents only applies to people with access to classified information. Rove, Libby and Armitage all have/had a security clearance. They then passed classified information that IDed a covert officer as a CIA agent to people who did not that have the clearance.

And to those who ask why Fitzgerald didn't stop his inquiry at an early stage, here is his answer to you:

To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President.

Fitzgerald said of Libby's obstruction justice:

made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions.

Fitzgerald didn't indict anyone because Plame wasn't considered "covert" under this statute... he makes it pretty clear she was. He didn't indict anyone in part because of Libby's perjury.

Again, for one to believe that Plame was not a covert agent, you must either believe Fitzgerald to be a liar or grossly incompetent.

Again, Fitzerald saying something doesn't make it so. He has to prove it. He didn't prove anyone covert. He didn't even try. He did say it was irrelevant to the case, until it was too late for Libby's lawyers to rebut (and he didn't prove it then either).

And the CIA saying she was covert is as credible as the CIA saying Saddam had WMD.

CheckSum,

He did prove it:

According to the summary of Fitzgerald's investigation, in which he spoke to the CIA about Plame's employment status:

A) CIA classified her as a covert agent.

B) She worked overseas within a 5-years under official and NOC cover. (the summary states she was assigned to CPD at Langley in 2002 and during her time there she made 7-10 trips overseas with both official and NOC cover).

C) The CIA took affirmative steps to keep her identity a secret.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Shipley;

That is rich. Let me be the first to tell you that Fitzgerald, the CIA, and MSNBC are all biased in their reportings.

Quoting MSNBC is particularly rich when one can see that Murdoch is trying to purchase the WSJ and the lefties don't want Murdoch and his right-leaning views to challenge the WSJ's left-wing bias.

The CIA, Fitzgerald, and MSNBC are using you as a useful idiot. They have a vested interest in distorting the truth to suit their own bias.

The CIA, Fitzgerald, and MSNBC are using you as a useful idiot. They have a vested interest in distorting the truth to suit their own bias.

Be sure to check for them under your bed tonight, vet!

No Tom, that isn't proof. No sworn testimony, no such court ruling.

Agan, Fitzgerald, the CIA, or even you saying something doesn't make it so.

The CIA knew Novak was going to publish Plame's name and employment status, yet took no affirmative action to stop him. If she was covert, they had the power to invoke national security and stop him. They didn't.

Another point, if Plame's status was classified, it was still classified after Novak's article. Novak didn't think it was classified, so he broke no law. The Wilsons knew it was classified (if it was), so they broke the law with their articles such as Vannity Fair.

The CIA knew Novak was going to publish Plame's name and employment status, yet took no affirmative action to stop him.

The CIA told Novak not to publish information about Plame twice, yet he still did.

PINCUS (7/27/05): Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

The Wilsons knew it was classified (if it was), so they broke the law with their articles such as Vannity Fair.

The Vanity Fair article was published in January 2004. The CIA lifted Plame's cover in December 2003 (see page 2 of the summary).

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

Again, Fitzgerald, the CIA, or even you saying something doesn't make it so.

You know, I'm beginning to think God himself would come down from high, say Plame was a covert agent covered by this statute and you all would say, 'Just because an all-powerful, all-knowing God says so, doesn't make it so."

What do you need to see for you think admit Plame was covert?

Plame says it. The CIA says it. Fitzgerald says it. Colleagues of Plame have said it. What more do you want?

What more do you want?

Any proof would suffice.

Lawyers and government officials on your side say one thing, lawyers and government officials on Libby's side say another.

The evidence I see is that the CIA didn't stop Novak, when they could. Fitzgerald said it was irrelevant and didn't try to prove it (thus keeping the defense from disproving it). No one was indicted, much less convicted of leaking. The Wilson's NYT op-eds and Vanity Fair articles were not affirmative actions to keep her covert. (It takes more than a month to put out a magazine. It's still against the law to reveal classified info to editors, publishers, and photographers).

Bottom line, Wilson lied when he implied in op-eds that the VP sent him to Niger and he came back with proof that Bush lied in his SOU address. When Cheney and reporters asked why was this fool Wilson sent, the answer was because his wife works at CIA. Everything that followed was BS.

BTW, they may think so, but CIA ain't God.

BTW, they may think so, but CIA ain't God.

No, they aren't, but...

Say your friend wants to know if some guy working at Burger King is a line cook or a senior vice president. He asks you to find out.

So, you go to the guy and ask him. What's your position? He replies senoir vice president.

OK, fine. But you're still not comfortable going back to your friend because this guy could be lying.

So you go to a co-worker and him. He says the guy is a senior vice president.

OK, fine. But maybe he's lying too.

So you go to Burger King itself and ask them. they say, according to the guy's employment history, he's a senior vice president.

So you go back to your friend and say, OK here's who I talked to and what they said. He's a senior vice president.

Then your friend says, why should I believe any of those people?

It's just all so illogical. Fine, believe that the CIA and Plame and her collegue are lying. But don't say there's no proof that she's covert. There is. You just don't choose to believe it, which is your right.

lawyers and government officials on Libby's side say another.

Please show me the lawyers and government officials who say Plame is not covert.

Please point out a transcript where Wilson's says that the VP's office sent him off to Niger.

Here is the op-ed I believe. Please point out where he states that the VP sent him off to investigate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&partner=USERLAND

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

I think you might be guilty of reporting a factual though now ingrained error.

If Burger King had the same lack of credibility as CIA and Plame do, no I wouldn’t believe them. And if this guy’s employment at Burger King was relevant in a court case and under question, he, his co-worker, and Burger King (who ever that is) would have to testify under oath. Verifiable documents would have to be produced, etc.

A very lame analogy. Besides, no one questions Plame’s CIA employment. It was widely known.

My weekend is starting, so you’re going to get the last word. Guess you win.

You keep on saying that it was widely known but provide zero evidence for this.

I guess you will continue to believe whatever fits your world-view, facts be damned, e.g. the inaccuracy that Wilson lied who sent him on the trip to Niger.