Author Topic: Libby Myths  (Read 4668 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Libby Myths
« on: June 09, 2007, 06:37:38 PM »
5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer

By Carol D. Leonnig
Sunday, June 10, 2007; B03

Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 30 months in prison last week for lying to federal investigators about his role in the leak of a CIA officer's identity, received 373 pages of letters about the high-profile convict whose fate he had to decide. Many argued for leniency on behalf of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, whom former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called a "dedicated public servant" and "strong family man." But some less famous writers were outraged about the example Libby set; one letter from "An Angry Citizen" demanded the longest prison term possible.

Around here, I'm the one who gets both kinds of letters. While covering this case for The Washington Post from the beginning of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation in December 2003, I've received a steady stream of mail, most of it fuming -- some because the writers think a tireless patriot is being persecuted by a runaway prosecutor, others because they think a ruthless traitor is getting off easy after jeopardizing national security.

In fact, neither caricature is fair -- let alone accurate. But even now, four years after Valerie Plame's name hit the papers, the public still has some startling misconceptions about this fascinating, thorny case.

1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.

Wrong. She was.

Granted, this wasn't so clear at the start of Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, so Libby's allies argued that the beans he spilled weren't that important to begin with. In fact, many of the officials who knew about her classified CIA status kept mum, which let Libby's pals jump to assert that she wasn't an undercover operative at the time of the leak.

But a CIA "unclassified summary" of Plame's career, released in court filings before Libby's June 5 sentencing, puts this one to rest: The CIA considered her covert at the time her identity was leaked to the media. The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment. That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to reveal the identities of covert CIA officers.

When Libby was convicted, some conservative pundits complained that Fitzgerald had presented no compelling evidence at trial that Plame was covert. But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to their client.

The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

2. Karl Rove would have been indicted in the Plame case if it hadn't been for all the destroyed evidence.


You'll find this conspiracy theory all over left-wing blogs. The main cause of the hyperventilating is a series of missing White House e-mails, supposedly containing marching orders from President Bush's top political adviser in which Rove told his troops to out Plame and punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph I. Wilson IV, for having poured cold water over reports that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa.

Those e-mails may contain interesting stuff, but for now, it's rank speculation to suggest that they hold information about the Plame case or would have pushed Fitzgerald to charge Rove with perjury. Fitzgerald told the court just that. He was exercising standard prosecutorial discretion when he decided not to charge Rove, according to sources close to the investigation. He didn't think he had a strong enough case to prove that Rove had intentionally lied to investigators (though some FBI agents disagreed).

3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.


Oh, brother, am I tired of this one. Libby wasn't charged with the crime of knowingly leaking classified information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he'd been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame's role at the CIA.

What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.

4. Bad press doesn't get under Cheney's skin.


The most powerful vice president in U.S. history is usually described as a tough customer who shrugs off media criticism. But if he had been that immune to (as one of his predecessors put it) "the nattering nabobs of negativism," he never would have told his top aide to talk about Joe Wilson, and none of this would have happened.

After all, did you hear Cathie Martin describe at trial what it was like to be the vice president's communications director during the spring and summer of 2003? Twice, Cheney dictated talking points for her about how to bat down Wilson's allegations that the administration had twisted the intelligence about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Cheney also ordered her to start monitoring all television reports on the Niger controversy and arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists to help get out his take on everything.

And that's not all. According to Libby's testimony, Cheney arranged to have Bush declassify passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs -- the first time Libby had ever heard of such a thing happening -- and pass them to Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter whom the administration saw as sympathetic.

5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.

When the investigation began, the president said he hated leaks and would hold leakers of classified information accountable. But he has not sacked anyone over the case.

Libby resigned the day he was indicted in October 2005. Two other officials who gave reporters information about Plame, former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, left government before Fitzgerald's inquiry concluded. And Rove, who first told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame's CIA identity, remains in the White House.

leonnigc@washpost.com

Carol D. Leonnig covers federal courts for

The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478_pf.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2007, 06:41:36 PM »
Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime

So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths"
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2007, 06:44:42 PM »
Looks like Ms. Leonning is creating myths of her own.

Neither Rove nor Libby were found guilty of leaking info about Plame, which is what he said.

So no need for Bush to sack them.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2007, 07:21:09 PM »
Neither Rove nor Libby were found guilty of leaking info about Plame, which is what he said.  So no need for Bush to sack them.

BINGO.  Yet the fringe left still has a near pathologic inability to grasp this concept     :-\
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2007, 07:27:17 PM »
Apparently the truth doesn't matter. or its OK if you are a democrat.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2007, 07:34:19 PM »
Ends (bash/degrade Bush Co every waking moment) justify the means (falsely laying claims to supposed "Libby myths", and completely misrepresenting, when not distorting what Bush made abundantly clear)

 >:(
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2007, 08:29:34 PM »

The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2007, 08:35:58 PM »
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

How about the investigator legally put in charge of making that determination, and IF she was determined by said investigator to have been covert, to then follow up with indicting anyone who may have leaked such information, such as the originator of the leak, who we KNOW now was Armitage
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2007, 08:40:32 PM »
Even if she was covert, which i doubt since the CIA spokesman confirmed that Plame held a desk job at Langley when Novak asked, and made no effort to conceal her employment, which would be strange if she were covert, but the other prong in the fork of the law in question was did Libby Know she was covert?

I haven't seen compelling evidence toward that either. They got him for something he did during the investigation, not something he did  that triggered an investigation. Thats the truth.

Does it matter?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2007, 02:34:46 AM »
The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

How about the investigator legally put in charge of making that determination, and IF she was determined by said investigator to have been covert, to then follow up with indicting anyone who may have leaked such information, such as the originator of the leak, who we KNOW now was Armitage

Didn't think so
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

gipper

  • Guest
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2007, 01:44:23 PM »
I'm the dumbass who comes in late to these discussions without catching up, but from my superficial understanding it appears that the scienter requirement (knowledge that Plame was covert) was the factual element lacking which prevented prosecutions on the substantive offense, and not Plame's actual lack of that status. But why go on technicalities: she actually had been a secret field operative running "agents," whose safety, through ties to her, could have been jeopardized.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 02:07:20 PM by gipper »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2007, 01:48:11 PM »
<<Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime

<<So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths">>

You are confused.  

What you refer to as an "OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald" was in fact a multi-phase proceeding, beginning with an investigation, reaching a stage of laying charges, and culminating in a trial.  The only "OFFICIAL" (in the sense of final, definitive) results of the process  was the trial verdict.

In the course of the investigation, Fitzgerald probably considered, and asked the grand jury to consider, whether Libby had disclosed the identity of a covert agent.  The grand jury indicted Libby on charges of obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury.  There was no indictment on charges of revealing an agent's identity.  Thus there was no official finding that Libby had revealed the identity of a covert agent and no "official" finding on whether or not Plame was covert.  

So it is misleading to say that the "OFFICIAL investigation" "trumps" the unclassified summary.  In fact there was no "official finding" on the issues of (a) Plame's status or (b) who, if anyone, "outed" her.  What we are left with is (a) the unclassified CIA summary, which says clearly that Plame WAS covert, and (b) the grand jury's failure to indict on charges of disclosing the identify of a covert agent, which could mean a great many things, none of them officially expressed and many having no bearing whatsoever on Plame's status.

gipper

  • Guest
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2007, 02:00:00 PM »
However the CIA itself classified Plame at the relevant times is "evidential" only, not conclusive. Resort has to be made to the statute itself, which controls.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2007, 02:07:55 PM »
I understand that, but my point was that whereas sirs considered that an "official" conclusion had trumped a single piece of evidence, there had been no official conclusion on that particular fact (Plame's status) and what we were left with was the single piece of evidence uncontradicted by any "official" conclusion.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Libby Myths
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2007, 02:12:53 PM »
<<Sorry Lanya, but an "unclassified summary" is still trumped by an OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald, which at no time
a) made the status of Plame "covert"
b) indicted anyone for outing a "covert agent", which IS a crime

<<So, this would again fall into the Loony left's alternate reality of "myths">>

You are confused.  What you refer to as an "OFFICIAL investigation, headed by Fitzgerald" was in fact a multi-phase proceeding, beginning with an investigation, reaching a stage of laying charges, and culminating in a trial.  The only "OFFICIAL" (in the sense of final, definitive) results of the process  was the trial verdict.

AND........gotta love those ever frequent ommissions...........at NO TIME did Fitzgerald OFFICIALLY
A) Designate Plame as covert
or
B) Indict anyone for "outing a covert agent" (which is a criminal offense)

You do realize that the PRIMARY job of Fitzgerald was to determine what transpired regarding the Plame situation??  Notably to determine IF anyone ILLEGALLY devulged a KNOWN & ESTABLISHED covert agent of the CIA

One more time for Tee & Co.  It's quite likely Plame was covert....at some time.  Was she when Novak's piece hit paper, and more so, was she when ARMITAGE originally divulged her name, is what was pertinent.  The rest of your rationalizaions are mere speculation on your part, punctuated yet again with an overwhelming lack of any evidence of proof of anything that Fitzgerald "probably considered".  Unless of course your his shrink, and are currently violating HIPPA regulations.  Best point your confusion mirror in its proper direction

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle