« Confabulating Once Again about Cheney | Home | Solidarity, Then and Now »
February 27, 2006
Plame's Status - Covert, Classified, or Not - Is Unimportant
Or so claims Patrick Fitzgerald, the CIA Leak Prosector, currently prosecuting Lewis Libby.
CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are concerned, it does not matter whether or not Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent when she was mentioned in the famous Robert Novak column of July 14, 2003. "We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued — even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent — the charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.
Fitzgerald's comments mark the evolution of the CIA leak case from a matter in which Fitzgerald investigated allegations that members of the Bush administration outed covert agent Wilson as part of a plot to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson — an alleged act about which Fitzgerald once said, "the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us" — into a case in which Valerie Wilson's job status and any damage done by the disclosure of her identity have become irrelevant, at least in Fitzgerald's view.Uh huh. Of course, if her status was that irrelevant, there was absolutely no need to have a special prosecutor investigating it in the first place.
It turns out Fitzgerald also does not intend to give up the original referral sent by the CIA to the Justice Department after the publication of the Novak column, pleading that it is not discoverable because it is "classified".
I guess the classification in that case is still relevant.
Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute offfers more prognosticating on this development.
The gist - a non-White House senior official leaked the Plame story to Bob Woodward in June, and (quite probably) Bob Novak in July; the source admitted to the Noval leak but only testified to the Woodward leak in November 2005. However, he lacked criminal intent, or was not part of a sinister conspiracy, or something, because Fitzgerald is apparently not pursuing him.Libby, on the other hand, mentioned Plame to Judy Miller, discussed the Wilson trip but not Ms. Plame with Tim Russert, and responded with something like, "I heard that, too" when Matt Cooper ran the Plame story by him (per the reporter's versions).
Does this make Libby a criminal conspirator, or a criminal leaker? Not yet - he hasn't been indicted for that. However, per Fitzgerald he lied about his conversations with three reporters, and, as Fitzgerald explained in his press conference, he is guilty of something, so away we go.
Just what Libby is guilty of that Mr. Clean of the non-White House is not guilty of eludes me presently, but I assume all will come clear in the fullness of time.
Meanwhile, the FBI-DoJ probe to discover who leaked the intelligence that actually hurt National Security is ongoing, and appears to be focused "on the staffs of two Senators, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Dick Durbin, as well as committee staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee and career intelligence staff detailed to U.S. Senate offices and committees."
Macsmind has been pointing at this development for a while now.
Alcibiades | 02/27/06 at 04:55 PM | Categories: Competing narratives
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/4601
Comments
I think that you are on the wrong track here.
Abetting violation of American law by Bush aides doesn't help Jews or Israel, much less the USA.
Raw Data | February 27, 2006 07:57 PM
What violation of US law?
BTW, the NYTimes today carried another leak story, this time German Intelligence. Where is all of this stuff coming from?
Robert Schwartz | February 28, 2006 12:48 AM
"What violation of US law?"
The violations of US law which Fitzgerald claims exist. If he is wrong, then the courts will acquit Libby.
I don't see why anyone can be incensed by a prosecutor doiing his job unless you think that Fitzgerald is just a tool...of someone...maybe "Hollywood?" (They control everything, you know, even tough Irish prosecutors.)
Raw Data | February 28, 2006 10:24 AM
The problem as I see it though is that one side of the aisle put on this huge song and dance about how "outing" Plame undermined national security at a time of war - which is why the case - because of its seriousness - needed a special prosecutor, a position which had been more or less got rid of by fiat after the Starr affair. And now it turns out that all this was propaganda and lies.
If the only violation of law turns out to have taken place only after Fitzgerald got into the action, then the way the case was presented to the public is ridiculous. And it certainly did not need a special prosecutor on board. Particularly as there have recently been much more serious violations of national security by former agents or by Senators or their staffs, which have deterred intelligence agents from other countries from wanting to share intelligence with us, because of the likelihood that that information, too, will be made public by people playing politics with intelligence.
Why is Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent a secret at this point? Surely since this case is going on, that information, on which so much else hinges, ought to be made public.
Secondly, I don't see how this issue has anything to do with helping or hurting American Jews. True, Libby is Jewish. But it is not like we believe in collective guilt these days. All Jews must suffer for the sins of this one vice-presidential aide, unless they immediately and publicly foreswear him. Etc.
There are some very estimable people, for example, on the Advisory Committee of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, and not all of them are Jewish by a long shot.
And why the outing or non-outing of Valerie Plame has anything to do with Israel is beyond me.
alcibiades | February 28, 2006 11:53 AM
I had no idea that Libby was Jewish.
I remarked because I couldn't figure why our hostess was taking on a fight which is not relevant to American national security or to Israel's. Libby has either committed criminal acts or he hasn't. Let the process proceed.
Raw Data | February 28, 2006 11:55 PM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
