Or maybe he needs to be better informed.
Some things are worth getting worked up about. What is truly remarkable, in the investigation of how Wilson's wife was outed as a covert CIA operative, is not whatever illegal activity is alleged in whatever indictments come down. What makes blood leave the face is what was done legally.
The vice president and senior White House staff embarked on what can only be described as a coordinated campaign to leak like crazy in an effort to discredit a credible critic -- who cited evidence that Saddam Hussein was not acquiring nuclear weapons materials -- and reveal Valerie Plame's identity.
Connelly's "credible critic" is, believe it or not, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Now I rather like Connelly, on some days, anyway. (Although he could, like most journalists, be better at making corrections.) So the nicest way to understand the claim that Wilson is a credible critic is to see it as a sly joke on Seattle leftists, with whom Connelly sometimes disagrees. And as joke, it is pretty good, since whatever other characteristics Wilson may have, credibility is no longer among them. On this interpretation, Connelly uses the phrase to tip us off that his argument is intended as a spoof.
That's the nicer interpretation. But for completeness, we must consider another possibility: Connelly actually believes that Wilson is credible. Many journalists say they think Wilson is credible — and some may actually believe that. It is just possible that Connelly is among that group.
If Connelly is among that group, he deserves not scorn, but help. So let's try to collect some of the evidence that has led every sensible person to conclude that, whatever else Wilson may be, he is not "credible".
First, a hint. Wilson was, briefly, part of John Kerry's campaign. But then he no longer was. Why did that happen? If Connelly were to investigate that question, he might learn something interesting.
For some hints are not enough, For them, I suggest, as a start, this article by Stephen Hayes. Here's a quick summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing:
. . . outside of the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, there is no real debate over Joseph Wilson's credibility. He doesn't have any.
And, perhaps, the pages of the Seattle PI and the Seattle Times. As I said, I like Connelly and would prefer to believe that he is joking. But just in case he isn't, why not add some evidence below on the question of Joseph Wilson's credibility? There's no shortage.
Posted by Jim Miller at October 28, 2005 02:20 PM | Email ThisIn a larger sense (and with him, that's easy to say ;') he likes being a bully and pounding you (especially if you're down or have your back turned), but like most liberals, is a coward when it comes to defending his opinions.
Yep, the ol' cannole is a textbook liberal urnalist alright ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 28, 2005 02:35 PMClinton Lied to a Grand Jury = no time in jail
We're watching with open anticipation to see what Libby ends up with!
Posted by: GS on October 28, 2005 03:27 PMFor instance, critics say there were no nuclear weapons. Oh yeah? Well what about the ten thousand Hydrogen-tipped, MIRV'd ICBM's the US Army found when they invaded Bagdad?
Huh? What about 'em?
And what about the HUNDRED thousand metric tons of Serin nerve gas Saddam had hidden that the US Army found when they invaded Bagdad?
Yeah, got you libs on that one, too.
And let's don't forget the ONE MILLION BILLION drone aircraft loaded down with Anthrax and programmed to launch in fifteen minutes, fly half way around the world and completely wipe out the entire Christian world!!!
YEAH! What do you liberals have to say about that?
Nothing!
Huh. That's what I thought.
Posted by: Scooter on October 28, 2005 03:49 PM1. They didn't.
2. Joe Wilson was not a CIA agent.
3. I certainly wouldn't consider Niger to be a hostile nation, but whatever helps your view of reality.
4. Valerie Plame/Flame/Wilson was not a covert CIA agent at the time all this took place.
Libby lied about a non-event. Maybe you ought to spend some time finding out why the CIA spooks were involved in this whole deal anyway. Couldn't be their politics favored somebody other than the current inhabitant of the White House, could it?
Black is white, up is down in your world, Ben. But keep up the fight. It's all you have.
Posted by: 5thColumnCure on October 28, 2005 03:55 PMWhile Libby made the wrong decision in attempting to shift the source of the leak from the administration and CIA to the press, it is likely that his revelation of Mrs. Wilson's alter-ego was not done in an attempt to slime Joe Wilson, but to explain why the CIA had asked Wilson to go to Niger in the first place.
Remember, it was another lie of Wilson's that the vice-president had asked him to go to Niger in the first place. When asked to explain why the CIA would want to send a rabid Bush critic on such a sensitive mission, Joe Wilson's connection to the CIA through his wife became very relevant.
Scooter Libby made the wrong decision. He appears to have engaged in an intentional effort to obstruct justice and make false statements. Perhaps in an attempt to protect his superiors, or simply to protect himself. Sometimes soldiers fall on their swords, but in this case, Libby may have done it for no reason. If there was no leak under statute, there was nothing to cover up.
Bottom line, you break the law and you pay for the crime. If only that applied here in King County.
If Valerie Plame Wilson was not covered by the Federal leak law, then Fitzgerald could have closed this investigation on the first day, long before Mr. Libby was given any opportunity to make false statements and allegedly commit perjury. We all know, though, don't we, that if he had done that, Democrats would have called him a partisan hack and Rove, Cheney and even Bush, would be targets of ongoing false charges related to this non-crime for years.
Posted by: Mike on October 28, 2005 03:59 PMNow, let's take a trip down memory lane - not for Bubba's perjury - but for Mike Espy, Clinton Cabinet member indicted on 39 counts. Or Henry Cisneros, Clinton Cabinet member indicted on 18 counts.
Lying is wrong on all accounts, but you folks on the Left have lost your minds.
Posted by: 5thColumnCure on October 28, 2005 04:00 PMMaybe I am wrong, but I read that reply as partly conceding my point. Connelly does not repeat his claim that Wilson is credible. And I am happy to concede that Wilson showed bravery in dealing with Saddam. (And am pretty sure I have already said so in previous posts on my site.) But being brave does not make a person credible. (Or vice versa.)
And Wilson is not "credible". One of the best on that point has been a man who calls himself a leftist, Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler.
One particular point deserves repeating: Wilson has said publicly many times that his trip to Niger undermined Bush's claims on Saddam's search for Niger. But the CIA thought his confidential report gave weak support to those claims. His saying the opposite publicly is one of the many reasons most doubt his credibility -- though not his courage.
Having gone this far, let's hope Mr. Conbnelly will go a bit farther. And let's give him some more evidence to help him in that journey.
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 28, 2005 04:02 PMActually, Libby didn't lie about violating the Espoinage Act. He apparently lied about whom he'd heard Plame's link to the CIA from. In one of life's little ironies, if he'd come clean about that from the get go there'd have been no indictments today at all since none of the indictments had anything to do with the Espionage Act.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on October 28, 2005 04:24 PMFitzgerald has said it was necessary to seek these charges in order to get to the truth about who outed Plame and why.
He has left open the possibility that once the Libby trial is underway and he is able to determine all the relevant facts, he will still seek charges of revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity.
He has left open the possibility that others will be charged with crimes as well.
He said the grand jury is unable to bring charges of revealing an undercover CIA agent's identity at this time because Libby has lied and obstructed justice.
The CIA and the grand jury have found Valarie Wilson to have been a NOC (Non-official cover) agent at the time she was outed by Novak.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 04:32 PMThe CIA and the grand jury have determined that Valery Plame was undercover.
A NOC is someone posing as the employee of a non-government entity. In order to do that they must be undercover.
Valerie Wilson's cover was as an employee of Brewster Jennings.
As a NOC, if you are caught by a foreign government, you can be executed as a spy.
Official cover agents have special protection since they are usually assigned to an embasy in a foreign country.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 05:13 PM"a truly undercover CIA operative would not recommend her husband for an overseas trip and then expect to maintain her "secret" identity as he proceeded to write an article for the New York Times and become a public spectacle because of it. Her role in the trip means that she was not undercover in any real sense of the word."
And Ms. Plame's "cover" was indeed a company called Brewster-Jennings & Associates.
In 1999.
We know this because that's what she used when she contributed to the Gore camppaign.
Now, by my math - 1999 was some time ago, and certainly outside of the time frame we're talking about in this case.
She was in no way covert, undercover, super secret Spy Squirrel during any of this mess. If anybody 'outed' her, it was Wilson himself.
Posted by: 5thColumnCure on October 28, 2005 05:37 PMIt is not known outside the CIA and the grand jury whether or when Valerie Plame acted in an undercover capacity outside the USA.
The CIA and the grand jury have determined that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent at the time she was outed by Novak.
Valerie Plame's cover was as an oil executive for Brewster Jennings at the time her cover was blown.
President Bush has called her outing "Very serious and a risk to national security".
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 05:45 PMHe did not admit (prior to her outing) to having an undercover CIA agent wife named Valerie Wilson.
Wilson has not been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and giving false statements and is not facing thirty years in prison and one million dollars in fines.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 05:47 PMThese accusations have been made by the Vice President, Lewis Libby and other White House officials. It is not corroborated by any testimony from the CIA or any other sources.
That Joe Wilson was married to a CIA undercover agent named Valerie Plame, and that Valerie Plame recommended her husband, Joe Wilson to investigate the Niger yellow cake issue was a claim made public by White House officials, not by Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame.
This outing is what prompted the investigation of White House officials Lewis Libby and Karl Rove.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 06:10 PMHe has also indicated that further charges could be forthcoming for Mr. Libby as well as for other WH officials.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 06:41 PMIn 1999.
We know this because that's what she used when she contributed to the Gore camppaign.
Call me crazy, but if I were really an undercover agent where my life or the lives of others depended on my identity staying secret, I wouldn't be making campaign contributions, let alone one using a fake CIA front company as my employer.
But that's just me.
There is no evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame arranged to have her husband, Joe Wilson, assigned to investigate the Niger yellow cake issue.
Really? Then who in their right mind would assign an ambasador who was openly hostile to the current administration and has ZERO qualifications to investigate evidence for possible sales of weapons grade fuel to Niger to do just that (where I've heard he almost never left the hotel and just gabbed with diplomats for the most part)?
Posted by: Mike H on October 28, 2005 06:52 PMHe is a puffed up moron of the highest order. I am not sure who is a lazier journalist (and calling them journalists is generous): Connelly or Maureen Dowd.
Posted by: Danny on October 28, 2005 06:55 PMIn 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, he was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (He was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.)
After Iraq, He was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, he helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 07:06 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
From the article:
"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. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)
Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.
The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.
"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities. "
_______
If she really was a "covert agent", there would be indictments for her outing... instead, you have five weak counts that have nothing to do with the original "crime." The Grand Jury and the CIA have not made any sort of determination. Oh, but wait, Joe Wilson has already stated as much that she wasn't a covert op at the time...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
From the transcripts:
"WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."
_______
Just the Facts, get your facts straight... or better yet, stop making them up. She hadn't been a covert agent in years, let alone at the time of her "outing"
Posted by: Mike H on October 28, 2005 07:53 PM01. She was working at Langley, was she not? That scarcely seems to square with the "undercover" description.
02. Doesn't the statute relevant to the underlying charge also require that the agent have served overseas in the five years prior to the disclosure?
Those are just my impressions. I am interested to hear your thoughts, however.
Posted by: HT on October 28, 2005 07:55 PMFitzgerald did not find that Plame was covert. He did find that her status was classified.
2 findings stated in the indictment:
"THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
1.d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and
endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
Given that Plame's employment status was classified at the time of Mr. Libby's converstations with the press, he was revealing classified employment information. While he may not have committed a crime per federal statute, he was ruining Plame's ability to enter into covert ops in the future, and his release of classified information cannot be simply brushed aside. While Fitzgerald tried to explain his reasoning for not indicting Libby on this release of classified info with his baseball pitcher analogy, I think Fitzgerald was giving Libby the benefit of the doubt, believing that he was not doing it to hurt Wilson or Plane, but to explain why the CIA would send such a bush-hater to Niger to investigate Iraq's intent to purchase Uranium. Despite Wilson's lying about it, he did find such evidence and his allegations against Bush were eventually proven to be false.
Libby's crime was lying about who was responsible for releasing her classified employment status to the press. He caused the investigation to take much longer, cost much more, and coersed Judith Miller to go to jail to keep Fitzgerald from the last reporter who could have supported Libby's story.
She did not, in fact, know anything.
I believe this is over from Fitzgerald's point of view. He came off today as sick to death of this and ready to get back to his full-time job in Chicago. Fitzgerald basically said it was over, while leaving the door only barely open to act on future information.
The conclusions by Fitzgerald make sense, and he came off to me as a pretty upright and professional guy.
I wish the Democrats would accept this for what it is, but I know they won't. On the contrary, I hope that our friends on the conservative side will stop comparing our rule of law under Bush against the absence of such a rule of law under Clinton. Just be thankful that the law means something again.
Libby made a bad decision. He revealed classified information to the press and then lied about it to the FBI and Grand Jury. He's made his bed.
I say stop defending something that we should not defend. Defuse the left's finger pointing by admitting that Libby made mistakes and praise the rule of law for determining what happened and holding those accountable who did wrong.
We can all understand how Libby felt dealing with the lies and distortions coming from Joe Wilson, but Libby crossed a line. It's unfortunate, but it is his problem now. It's time to move on.
Posted by: Mike on October 28, 2005 08:15 PMIf true, that would explain why he was charged...oops, I guess he wasn't.
I'm more than satisfied to wait for the trial. Grand Jurys and Prosecutors don't decide innocence and guilt. That's what trials are for.
We've heard one side. We'll hear the other at trial, and let the chips fall where they may. If he did in fact commit the offenses he's charged with, then let him take the consequences.
Posted by: South County on October 28, 2005 08:21 PMSorry Mike, but you're incorrect on that one... Libby told Miller well before she went to jail that she could talk.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2005/10/03/AR2005100301770.html
It is unknown outside the CIA and grand jury whether Valerie Plame had been acting in a covert operation overseas in the last five years. This kind of information would be secret and known only to those with the proper authority, such as the grand jury and the CIA.You and I and the press would not have access to this information, and so we can not judge whether she was undercover or not.
The CIA and the grand jury, though, who do have access to this kind of information, have determined that she was undercover at the time of her outing.
It is possible then, that Valerie Plame was involved in clandestine overseas operations during that period -- which would provide her protection under the law.
The CIA asked the justice department to investigate the outing of one of their NOC's, (Non Official Cover), Valery Plame. They considered her to be an undercover agent at the time of her outing.
Her husband, Joseph Wilson, said that "She was not an undercover agent the day Novak published her name in his column". He has since elaborated. He said that he meant that because Novak had published her name, and her position as working for the CIA, she was no longer undercover. He further went on to say that up until Novak outed her, she was undercover.
In order to bring perjury charges, the lie must have material affect on the outcome of the trial. In this case, the outing of an undercover CIA agent. Clinton was not charged with perjury (although he later admitted to lying under oath) because the nature of his lie would have had no material affect on the outcome of the trial.
If Valerie Plame had not been undercover, then publishing her name would not be a crime. Therefore, lying about it would not constitute perjury, since it would not materially affect the outcome of the trial.
Since the grand jury chose to indict Mr. Libby for perjury, the lie he allegedly told would have had to have material affect on the outcome of the trial.
Mr. Fitzgerald has not yet sought charges for the outing of Valerie Plame because he has not yet gotten all the facts. He has indicated that once the Libby trial begins, and the truth comes out, he might be armed with the evidence to bring charges under that statute.
Neighbors of the Wilson's who were interviewed by the FBI said that while they were close friends with the Wilson's they thought Valerie was an oil company executive for Brewster Jennings.
Perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements are serious crimes punishable by up to thirty years in prison and a million dollars in fines.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, even though he was never indicted by that grand jury for perjury.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 28, 2005 08:55 PMHowever, my own analysis leads me to believe that the grand jury did not conclude that Plame had been undercover and overseas within the last five years. Fooling the neighbors really doesn't count; most foreign intelligence services would be clever enough to follow her to work, rather than just ask everyone on her block if they thought she might be a spy. Otherwise, an indictment against Libby on the underlying statute would have been in order; yet the grand jury did not vote for one.
As Martha Stewart has established by example, you can get in trouble for perjury even when no underlying crime exists. I think that is where Libby finds himself these days. Not exactly the sort of company I'd choose to put myself in, but there it (or rather, he) is.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: HT on October 28, 2005 11:18 PM1. Virtually every intelligence service in the West believed that Saddam had WMDs of one type or another and was actively looking for more.
2. Virtually every Democrat and Republican in the House and Senate believed that Saddam had WMDs.
3. Saddam had used them before and threaten to use them again.
This is all that was needed to depose Saddam. If there ever was a case where it was better to be safe than sorry this was it. So what if Saddam was pulling off a gigantic con that even fooled his own Republican Guard? Should we give Iraq back to him and apologize for our mistake? Well T.S. for Saddam.
The Bush Administration is almost totally inarticulate. Instead of pointing out the facts and vigorously defending them Bush pulled back into his shell as he often does and clammed up. Someone in the Administration probably became frustrated with the boss's silence and decided to point out Joe Wilson's less than perfect credibility because his wife worked for the CIA. A ridiculous screw-up but really a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: Bill K. on October 28, 2005 11:45 PMThere are plenty of ways to determine Valerie's presence or non-presence during the time in question. In an age of omnipresent security cameras and on-line instant access databases, one with the appropriate subpoena could get all of Valeire's documents and bank records for the period of time in question as well as her passport to determine is she had, in fact, left the country for any purpose whatsoever during that time.
You know, bank withdrawal staments at ATMs, credit card usage history, credit reports, utility bills, canceled checks, municipal actions, tax returns, correspondence, e-mail and internet usage reports from their ISP, telephone records from their residence, cellular telephone records, electrical usage, eyewitness reports of neighbors, friends, associates, business contacts, school and health officials, visas in her passport, tickets purchased in their names or attributed to known associates... the list goes on. Any private investigator or municipal district police investigator would be able to determine if she was here or not. If she was not deployed within the 5 year period, then Libby is simply an idiot who deserves whatever the grand jury decides.
Posted by: Aaron on October 29, 2005 03:41 AMCornholey is always pretty smug when criticized. But you wanna know how to really tick Cornholey off????
About 5:00PM on Friday, hang a CLOSED sign on the door of the Old Country Buffet in Lynnwood.
They were brought after twenty-two months of investigation of the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's identity.
In order to conveine a grand jury under these circumstances it is necessary to establish a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed.
In this case, the crime would be the outing of an undercover CIA agent. If that were not established, the grand jury could not have been conveined.
The first thing Fitzgerald determined was that Valerie Plame Wilson was an udercover CIA agent at the time she was outed by Novak.
That Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent at the time of her outing is a matter of record at this time.
The indictment states that her position was classified, another way of saying she was undercover. Her status as an undercover CIA agent was secret, and the CIA was actively taking precautions to keep her status secret.
This is a matter of record established by the grand jury and the CIA.
If she had been involved in overseas clandestine operations during the five-year period in question, the CIA could have employed extensive technological as well as human assets to keep her actions and movements secret.
It would be possible for Mrs. Wilson to have been engaged in clandestine overseas operations without you or I or the press knowing about it. The CIA, who requested the investigation in the first place, would, though, have that information and would have passed it along to the prosecutor and grand jury.
It has been determined by the CIA and the grand jury that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent at the time of her outing, and therefore deserving of protection under the law.
The grand jury and the CIA have access to information the public has never seen. And no doubt they used this information to reach their conclusions. This information might come out in the trial.
Again, the CIA and the grand jury, both of which are privy to classified information, have determined that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent at the time of her outing.
Fitzgerald has not asked the grand jury for an indictment on the charge of outing an undercover CIA agent yet. He stated that because Mr. Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury, he frustrated the legal process. In other words, he obstructed justice.
Mr. Fitzgerald has further stated that the reason for bringing the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice and making false statements is so that he can get to the truth about Mr. Libby's and other WH officials' iinvolvement in the outing of a CIA undercover agent.
There is no question that Mr. Libby was the first government official to release Mr. Wilson's name and CIA status to the press.
The only issues needed to be resolved on the original charge are whether Mr. Libby knew that releasing her name would be detremental to national security, and whether others were involved.
Once that is determined, it is possible for Mr. Fitzgerald to seek charges on the original crime of outing an undercover CIA agent.
First of all, let me say that Joe Wilson outed his own wife in his book The Politics of Truth where he identifies her and his relationship with her and ther involvement in overseas assignments. The wife of a prominent foreign diplomat is not undercover.
However let me address the inaccruate conclusions drawn by Just the Innunedo:
1. Convening an investigation is not proof that a crime has been committed. When a dead body is found, and investigation ensues but that does not mean a crime was committed. The accusation for the supposed outing was levelled, but that does not mean that the law was actually violated just that someone thought it was and so in the heated politcal environment, to avoid a different scandal, the President conved a special prosecutor to investigate whether the accusation was valid. So, JTI implies that since a reasonable belief that a crime was committed is equivalent to a crime being committed.
2. The idictment states that her position was classified, but that is not the same as saying she was under cover. That is JTI's assumption and a false one. The fact that information is listed as classified does not mean that the information is not known by those not "in the need to know". Additionally, it was not establisehed that Libby knew it was classified at the time he was discussing it. It makes a huge difference as to what the crime was.
3. No, it was not determined that Plame was an undercover agent. Nowhere can JTI find documented proof of that assertion. Again, it was JTI's inferrence that classified equated to undercover. There is no "matter of record" as asserted by JTI.
4. If Libby obstructed justice and lied and was clearly the one who outed an undercover agent, why was he not charged with that crime? He was not because that crime was not at issue. There is nothing that says that the crime originally investigated was the crime that was committed. However, Fitzgerald was given broad authority to seek out ANY crime from the origianl accusation up through anything commited DURING the investigation. In this case, the crime asserted was that someone interefered with the investigation and not that the origianl crime itself was commited. To infer that is incorrect.
5. JTI sates with authority that "There is no question that Mr. Libby was the first government official to release Mr. Wilson's name and CIA status to the press." I was not aware that JTI was the sole judge and jury in this case and can hand down legal verdicts. The only thing we know is that Fitzgerald has come to the conclusion that Libby started it all. However, Libby has had no opportunity to mount a defense. Grand Jury investigations are entirely onesided with the prosecution getting to present its case with no rebuttals, cross examinations, defense witnesses or anything else. We only know what the charge is, nothing else.
6. JTI makes the error of assuming that since a charge was levied that the defendent is clearly guilty and the only thing to be established is motive and extent. I would guess taht he believes that all defendents are guilty in every trial by virtue of their being the defendent. No innocent person has ever been charged, I suppose, in JTI's mind.
No, Libby has been charged with making false statements in an investigation. If Fitzgerald believed that tose fasle statements were a fact, and that the truth was that Libby outed an active covert agent, then it would make sense to charge Libby for the crime JTI states Libby committed. In other words, if Libby is accused of lying and thus DID out Plame, then he should be charged with that right now. Instead, it seems the original crime was not in play at all, but Libby was guilty of impeding the investigation anyway and so he is charged with obstuction of said investigation.
He will have his chance to tell HIS side of the story now. When that is done, only THEN can we say for certainty what he was or was not guilty of. And, until Fitzgerald levels a charge of outing a covert agent, we cannot state with any level of certainty that that crime was committed by anyone. To do so would be irresponsible.
Posted by: Eyago on October 29, 2005 10:00 AMAnother reason for not guilty is that he cooperated with the grand jury in the fullest. It was his notes that provided the basis for the charges. Given the 16 hour work days, it is possible for a person to misspeak on minor events that occurred 20 months previously. The events surrounding this case in the context of events occurring on the world stage are extremely minor in nature.
There were no other charges served up by the grand jury. Anything else is nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking. Regarding the claims and "facts" reported by "Just the Facts" they are nothing more then speculations and wishful thinking. Clearly Valerie was not an "undercover CIA agent." For if she was such an agent, that would have been a central charge and criminal charges would have been accorded. And during the forthcoming trail(s) resulting from the grand jury indictment(s) it is her position with the government agency that will determine that perjury and obstruction are not relevant. It is all a question of the meaning of "is".
No crime, no foul.
Snuffy
Posted by: snuffy on October 29, 2005 10:12 AMI'm watching with interest the progression of event around this non-event. I wonder if the proper focus of attention will ever be applied against the true "villain" of this story - joe wilson himself...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 29, 2005 10:32 AMI have ZERO respect for any journalist who is still using Wilson's NYT op-ed as a source and is still ignoring the later Senate report that contains Wilson's actual report.
Posted by: Bostonian on October 29, 2005 10:48 AMAlso, he was seething with anger when he described why Libby was indicted. Fitzgerald's jaws were working overtime and his eyes would flash in anger.
For all the talk of how fair Fitzgerald is, this made me somewhat uncomfortable.
If Valarie Plame were an analyst, she would have been working for the Directorate of Intelligence, not the CDP.
From the indictment, page 5, top of page, item #9: "On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney both are aware that the CDP is the spy wing of the CIA. They were aware that she was undercover and not an analyst, since if she were an analyst, she would have been working for the Directorate of Intellegence.
President Bush has called the outing of Valerie Plame "Very serious and a threat to national security."
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 29, 2005 11:25 AMWild speculations and wishful thnking on your part simply matters little in the course of human events and the challenges faced by this country. A temptest in a teapot is exactly that.
The sad note is the damage done by the charges to a man that has served his country well. Based on his otherwise spotless character, I am certain his defense may prevail. And at the end of the day the hot air of liberals will matter little in the course of events. For all they have is hot air, speculation and wishful thinking which obscures their thinking and distorts history. They simply refuse to understand the consequences of their muddled thinking.
I prefer the thinking of this retired marine corp. officer to that of a liberal:
This "Letter of Apology" was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired:
For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre.
I humbly offer my opinion here:
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs.
I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships.
I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.
I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause."
I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.
I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).
I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.
I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.
I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.
I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site."
I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc!
I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.
We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?
Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans.
If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait! You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
Chuck Pitman
Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret)
— Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 29, 2005 12:13 PMLibby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, has indicated his initial defense will be one of "forgetfulness", not that Valarie Plame was not an undercover CIA agent.
Joseph Tate is quoted by the AP as saying, "As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred."
Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, has indicated his initial defense will be one of "forgetfulness", not that Valarie Plame was not an undercover CIA agent.
Joseph Tate is quoted by the AP as saying, "As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred."
I wonder exaclty what your point is. No, none of those people are contending that Mrs. Plame/Wilson was not undercover because that has nothing to do with the charges. Why mount a defense for a crime for which you are not charged? They make statements relevant to the case at hand. To do otherwise would be pointless.
However, since you are fully informed of all aspects of the case, the facts, the law, and are the judge and the jury, I guess it does seem strange to you that no one is trying to defend against your charges.
If and when there is a charge of outing a covert agent, then someone would probably bring up the argument that Mrs. Plame/Wilson does not qualify under the law as it is written. In the mean time, they will instead defend against the ACTUAL charge with the RELEVANT arguments thereof. JTI, you continue to live up to your "true" moniker.
Using the AP and other selected quotes which may or may not be in context and concluding, "No one in the Bush Administration nor any lawyers for either Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove have contended that Mrs. Wilson was not undercover and therefore entitled to protection under the law" is farsical at this early date because the grand jury did not file charges related to criminal behaviour resulting from the Esponage Act. Perjury and obstruction of justice against one person is all you have, nothing more.
All that remains is wild speculation and wishful thinking on your part. As I said earlier, I prefer the thinking of people like the retired Marine Corp General and others who have first hand hand knowledge of world events that speak with exerience.
Time and time again reporters have proven that they are not up to the task of reporting events accurately or without distortion. The events in Iraq bare testimony to the shoddy reporting.
Your selected quote of Benjamin Franklin probably applies more to Kerry who attempted to wrap himself in the flag, replete with medals (thrown away during the sixties?, movies and phony engagements in places he never set foot, during his losing campaign.
Like I said, prefer the company of people who have been there and did that than people who speculate about what ifs in the comfort of their living rooms relying on talking heads and lazy reporters.
Snuffy
Posted by: snuffy on October 29, 2005 12:54 PM
Snuffy
Posted by: Snuffy on October 29, 2005 01:02 PMLying under oath is not necessarily perjury.
In order for lying under oath to rise to perjury, the lie must have material impact on the outcome of the investigation or trial.
The investigation, in this case, is to determine the circumstances surrounding the revelation of the identity of a CIA undercover agent.
The investigation is not to determine if an undercover CIA agent's cover had been revealed.
So, in order for perjury charges to be brought, the lie or lies, in this case, must be relevant to the outing of the CIA agent in question.
If the CIA agent was not undercover and not entitled to protection under law, then no lie could affect the outcome of the investigation, since there would be no reason to suspect that any law had been broken.
If the grand jury had determined that Mrs. Wilson was not an undercover CIA agent, and that she was not entitled to protection under the statute, the investigation would have ended there and then.
It's not clear at this point whether Mr. Libby's disclosure met the threshold for prosecution under the applicable statue, since he has not been, according to the grand jury's judgement, forthcoming in his testimony.
So it would be entirely reasonable that if Mrs. Wilson's status as an undercover CIA agent were in doubt, Mr. Tate would base his defense on the assumption that there was no reason to believe a law had been broken in the first place, therefore, any lies from Mr. Libby about the investigation could not have any material impact on the outcome of the trial and could not rise to perjury.
Mr. Fitzgerald has indicated that more charges could be brought in the future against Mr. Libby and possibly others.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 29, 2005 01:47 PMInfo. on Wilson starts at page 37 or so. He did not provide a *written* report to the CIA, and his intelligence (such as it was) was not considered earth-shattering in any way and was not forwarded to Cheney. However, Wilson did report that "Nigerien officials had admitted that the Iraq delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium." See page 46.
Wilson changed his own story in his book. This was buried in the WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A54640-2004Apr29¬Found=true
Posted by: Bostonian on October 29, 2005 02:09 PM"There is no evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame arranged to have her husband, Joe Wilson, assigned to investigate the Niger yellow cake issue."
So sorry, but that is not a fact.
Here is a fact: the investigation by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee found the note that Ms Plame wrote to her superiors, recommending her husband for the job.
As noted by a previous poster, in assigning Joe Wilson, the CIA effectively outed Ms Plame (nor was this the first time they had done so), as every foreign intelligence service and investigative journalist would routinely check his background, and thereby reveal Ms Plame.
Therefore, Mr Libby was not the first government official to reveal Ms Plame's identity, though he was perhaps the first official to do so within the scope of Mr Fitzgerald's investigation.
Also, so sorry that you have lost your grip on reality, but if Mr Fitzgerald had found that Mr Libby had violated the law against revealing covert operatives, he would have indicted Mr Libby for that. End of story.
You are continuing to make errors in logic and drawing conclusions that are not substantiated. You are effectively appealing to reason and logic but without the subsequent legal expertise to back up your claim, and without this support, your arguments amount to little more than conjecture on your part passed of as truth.
to wit:
Two of the charges against Lewis Libby are for perjury.
Lying under oath is not necessarily perjury.
In order for lying under oath to rise to perjury, the lie must have material impact on the outcome of the investigation or trial.
I am no legal expert, so I cannot confirm or deny your claim here. I am guessing that you also lack specific credentials. Since you have previously failed to maintain sufficient credibility in other portions of your arguments, you should understand why I will not simply take your word on this. Please provide a clear reference to show the distiction between lying under oath and perjury and better yet, provide any credible citation in THIS case where Libby's perjury is predicated on the fact that it was materially relevent to the original "crime" rather than just the investigation.
and...
If the CIA agent was not undercover and not entitled to protection under law, then no lie could affect the outcome of the investigation, since there would be no reason to suspect that any law had been broken.
That is not correct either. The prosecuter had broad powers to investigate the original charges or any crime that arose during the investigation of the original charge. Obstuction of an investigation is a crime whether the obstructer was originally a party to the charge or if the original charge proves to be substantiated. you will need to provide proof again that obstruction and perjury are not crimes if the orginal charge is determined to be without merit. Impeding an investigation is a chrageable offense regardless of the results of the original investigation. Please demonstrate otherwise with proof.
These two pillars upon which you base your final conclusion are unsubstantiated, and thus I dispute your conclusion. Martha Stewart was convicted of impeding an investigation for which there were no charges substantiated in that original investigation. If she was not convicted of the original crime, why was she put in prison for actions subsequent to it relating to the investigation itself? If there was no original crime, there can be no crime in lying about it according to your logic. Yet, martha Stewart was placed in prison just the same. It is illegal to impede an investigation, not just investigations that result in conviction of someone.
Posted by: Eyago on October 29, 2005 02:55 PMWhy is Ken Lay still a free man? his damage to the country at the time was as if he was a right hand man to Osama. He tumbled financial pillars Osama's planes couldn't reach. Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton.. bah that is a huge waste of resources. So they lied. Did the lie do any damage?
The only difference in these cases is the $$$ of your lawyers and how smart they are. We could all end up in prision some day for some fictional thought crime if the Grand Jury system is not re formed.
Posted by: holt on October 29, 2005 06:07 PM"There is no evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame arranged to have her husband, Joe Wilson, assigned to investigate the Niger yellow cake issue."
Horsehocky. See Senate report (link above), page 39.
Posted by: Bostonian on October 29, 2005 07:30 PMBe patient, he'll get his. Remember, it took two years just to bring weak charges that had nothing to do with the originally alleged "crime" against Libby. Something of the magnatude of Enron takes a little longer.
Posted by: Mike H on October 29, 2005 07:59 PM['per-je-re]
pl: -ries
Anglo-French perjurie parjurie, from Latin perjurium, from perjurus deliberately giving false testimony, from per- detrimental to + jur- jus law
: the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true.
Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice not perjury.
One may be convicted of obstruction of justice without it being materially relevant to the original charge.
Obstruction of justice is a crime that stands alone.
Ome may not be convicted of perjury if the lie was not relevant to the original subject of the investigation.
Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and was not in charge of assigning investigators.
She could not have been responsible for assigning her husband to Niger.
Posted by: Just the Facts on October 29, 2005 08:15 PMOme may not be convicted of perjury if the lie was not relevant to the original subject of the investigation.
I wasn't aware he was convicted of anything. As the saying goes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That doesn't mean it's guilty of anything. That's what the trial is for.
She could not have been responsible for assigning her husband to Niger.
Whether or not she could have doesn't matter, because you're right, she didn't assign him. What she did do was to push to have those that could assign him to do so, which is what happened.
Posted by: Mike H on October 29, 2005 08:52 PMYou continue to live up to your new moniker.
First you state:
There is no evidence suggesting that Valerie Plame arranged to have her husband, Joe Wilson, assigned to investigate the Niger yellow cake issue.
But you seem to change your story in the last post:
Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and was not in charge of assigning investigators.
She could not have been responsible for assigning her husband to Niger.
There is a memo she wrote recommending her husband citing his qualifications. that IS evidence that she arranged to have her husband assigned. She did not assign him, that is true, but that was not the point argued. She gave an unsolicited reference for him. This, by the way was the REASON this whole flap occured, so it is not immaterial. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with it, but the Memo says otherwise.
Your definition of perjury does NOT help in the slightest to credit your argument.
the act or crime of knowingly making a false statement (as about a material matter) while under oath or bound by an affirmation or other officially prescribed declaration that what one says, writes, or claims is true.
Since the question being investigated was whether Libby outed Plame or not, his inaccurate statements were about a material matter. Even if the charge is not proven out, the perjury charge was leveled because it related to the facts of the case. It would be immaterial had he lied about the age of his wife for instance. that would not be material and thus would not constitute perjury.
It is partly my fault as I was distiguishing between a material matter that was proven verses a material matter that was not proven and you may have been thinking about the difference between a material and immaterial matter. The point still remains that the question was material to the investigation even if the original charge does not result in a conviciton.
It also seems to me that perjury and obstuction are pretty much the same thing when it comes to the issue of the investigation regardless of a conviction. Both are impeding the investigation and are material to the investigation even if they turn out to be insufficient to the original charge.
I am no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but i am not yet convinced of your side and put the burden of proof back on you since you make the claim in the first place.
Posted by: Eyago on October 29, 2005 09:28 PMIn fact, the Washington Post is at last starting to get it. This is from Dana Milbank, last week:
"Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.
"That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."
"But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.
"The CIA has always said, however, that Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.
"Wilson also mistakenly assumed that his report would get more widespread notice in the administration than it apparently did. He wrote that he believed "a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" had probably taken place, perhaps orally.
"But this apparently never occurred. Former CIA director George J. Tenet has said that "we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials." Instead his report, without identifying Wilson as the source, was sent in a routine intelligence paper that had wide circulation in the White House and the rest of the intelligence community but had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.
"Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: "This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson's report "did not resolve" the matter.
"On another item of dispute -- whether Vice President Cheney's office inspired the Wilson trip to Niger -- Wilson had said the CIA told him he was being sent to Niger so they could 'provide a response to the vice president's office,' which wanted more information on the report that Iraq was seeking uranium there. Tenet said the CIA's counterproliferation experts sent Wilson 'on their own initiative.'
"Wilson said in a recent interview: 'I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent.'"
- www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html
Forget the eminently forgettable Joel Connelly. Alert the Seattle Times (2 or 3 weeks ago the Times wrote that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger) to that last sentence from the WaPo.
Posted by: sandalista on October 30, 2005 04:02 PM