Villainous Company

Let me post this first, to get it out of the way for more substantive insults to come this way later in the day:

"You know Right Wingers you are just a pathetic bunch of partisan hacks that find ways to act like you had any credibility. The fact is that you are as credible on the subject, as a used car salesman in a junk yard."

I need to save that powerful piece of insight, because otherwise I might go through life thinking that I (and other like-minded criminals) might have some kind of thought processes that cause us to questions people like Joe Wilson, John Kerry, John Murtha and the rest when they make assertions that I find....disagreeable?

Joe Wilson: A man who has serially lied in public repeatedly about those "sixteen words" uttered by GWB in the State of the Union speech low those many years ago, which Lord Butler of the UK and British MI6 still stand by, and will come to profit by this, is some kind of hero to the "Olbermann crowd". Well, duh me. And a big "duh!" to Robert Novak, another pathetic hack.

But I gotta remember my low IQ and low credibility on this and other things. And credit that "anti-Bush" Richard Armitage with his loyalty to the government (he turned himself in!) he served as Deputy Sec. of State, and his present great work now as part of the John McCain "Straight Talk Express" Team, 2008.

Wot a guy!

Note the simple silliness of Sandy Bergler stealing/destroying documents which the 9/11 Commission needed to make its judgments and walking away with the drastic punishment of picking up litter in Virginia parks. Then compare that with a witch-hunt by a political assassin named Fitzgerald that catches Libby stumbling in nonsensical memory games---after FitzFong knew the leak had been to Novak by Armitage before he started his show trial. And that Plame was not a covert agent, as Ms. Toensing points out in her lucid professional fashion. Just another Vishinsky-type purge by rabid apparatchiki of the left peddling their agitprop.

GWB is either too compliant or, in the case of last year's elections, preaching ceaselessly about Iraq when he should have been non-stop touting the best economy ever. He either gets wobbly like his Poppy or stubbornly butts his head against walls. Why doesn't he realize that the MSM will never forgive him for defeating Gore in 2000? The game is fixed, and Coulter does well to remind the ridiculous flaps about chasing DeLay while a crook like Cong. Jefferson gets appointed by Pelosi to Homeland Security, with its fungible secrets that Jefferson will trade for more cold cash to the highest bidder. Pelosi is a machine politician more crooked than DeLay ever was.

The outcome is rigged, and if Billy-Jeff can pardon a mega-criminal like Marc Rich in return for massive contributions to his library and some fleshy face-time with Marc's wife Deborah, then Libby can get pardoned for faulty memory in a kangaroo court plumped up in the media by mendacious reporters like Tim Russert. And Chris Matthews.

Oversimplification works best fer me.
Plame was an analyst, not an operative.
She was therefore not covert as an agent.
Her job with the CIA was that of a desk jockey.

In fact this whole tempest in a teacup is one of the things that is wrong with analysts; they are NOT field agents and when they need to know something, don't they have to get approval to ask a field agent? Mr. Wilson as an ambassador could have easily gotten the information he needed from an operative
in Niger.

And didn't her picture surface in some rag weeks or days before she was 'blown?' This is also rather hysterical; how good is she as an analyst?

I am angry that an innocent man was wrongly accused and left to dry for the sins of others.
Scooter Libby is not guilty of anything except
associating with the wrong people.

Why anyone would ever answer a single question from a Fed investigator is beyond me. Libby should have learned from the example of Martha Stewart, another high profile target imprisoned over a misstatement made during yet another highly publicized non-crime.

Quite frankly I've found this Libby business very complicated, and a bit boring. Thankfully, Stephen Colbert explains it to me in this video:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/03/stephen-colbert-explains-libby-verdict.html

Sadly, we have substituted legal games for the once noble exercise of discerning Good from Evil.

These trials are brute exercises in sticking it to the Man.

My creed for the 21st century, my fervent prayer: nolo pellere homini. I do not wish to stick it to the Man.

KJ has remarked in the past, that he works for "The Man". He will be relieved. :)

"Patrick Fitzgerald, cleaning up Washington corruption one Republican at a time."

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstructing a justice department investigation into a matter originally believed to affect national security. Clinton was convicted of lying in a civil legal dispute between two individuals, neither of which was acting in a national governmental capacity at the time of the alleged events in question. Why are you minimizing the wrong which Libby did, when I expect that you trumpeted the wrong that Clinton did? Obstruction of justice is a serious matter.

So lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice is not a crime? Well damn, we seriously wasted time impeaching Clinton then.

You learn something new every day.

"Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstructing a justice department investigation into a matter originally believed to affect national security."

Except that it was well known, before the INVESTIGATION even began, that there was no threat to national security.

I understand that the original investigation did not bear fruit, however, Libby still lied.

The huge and long investigation into the Whitewater land deal never led to anything either, but Clinton still got impeached about lying to the grand jury while he was being investigated for Whitewater (and some crazy thing with Paula Jones too, which also went nowhere).

Whether the investigation is bogus or not, you are required to tell the truth to the investigators and the grand jury.

Whether the investigation is bogus or not, you are required to tell the truth to the investigators and the grand jury.

Agreed.

Why are you minimizing the wrong which Libby did, when I expect that you trumpeted the wrong that Clinton did?

Not sure who this is addressed to, but if to me, it's off base. I am not minimizing anything.

It took Patrick Fitzgerald more than TWO YEARS after he already knew Armitage was the leaker to bring Libby up on charges. SO HE DID NOT KNOW, AT THE TIME, THAT LIBBY HAD LIED, IF HE DID LIE.

Pay attention now: since Fitz knew when he took over that the very crime for which the grand jury had been impanelled had not occurred, THERE WAS NO REASON TO KEEP GOING FOR TWO MORE YEARS hoping to catch someone in a slipup.

At that point, would it not have made sense to drop the case, not send Judy Miller to jail, not do any of the other wasteful things he did, which ultimately produced nothing (not surprising - he already knew who the leaker was).

If he thought Plame was covert, he had enough at the outset to commence going after Armitage. But he never did that, because she wasn't covert for the purposes of the statute. Therefore, no reason to continue. But continue on he did, and it took him two more years to snag Scooter Libby...long AFTER he knew no crime had been committed.

Fitzgerald knew from the get go that Libby made false statements to the FBI. Prosecutors can't let that go. It doesn't matter what the crime is, or is not, or if there is one at all. Once you start talking to the FBI, you tell the truth. You get brought in before a grand jury, you tell the truth.

Now Fitzgerald can come back to Chicago and continue his investigations into our Dem Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

[Cass] Pay attention now: since Fitz knew when he took over that the very crime for which the grand jury had been impanelled had not occurred

I'm trying to pay attention; problem is, you and I and Harriet may be paying attention to different things.

That said, I am unclear on what your reasoning is in making the assertion cited above. If it's because no crime could conceivably have been committed, given Plame's "status", well, I believe that that's subject to some debate. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter, having not researched it. I do note that I seem to recall "super-lawyer" Boies expressing on Fox that he said that that was a difficult area of the law, and that it was an open question. From what I know of him Boies is an excellent attorney, and I would tend to trust his judgment, all things being equal. Boies also remarked there that no crime had been committed and that Fitz knew this from very early on. Given my respect for Boies the attorney, I would tend to believe his judgment in this regard, too, was on point, but I hesitate to accept anyone's blanket word on a subject out-of-authority, especially when the grounds for it are not given. Why was no crime committed and how is it that Fitz knew this from early on? It must have something to do with a different element of the crime re: which the CIA made the referral in the first place ~ perhaps the element of intent (if that is an element of the offense). How was it that Fitz knew from early on that that element was lacking ? Well, if Armitage couldn't be expected to be proven to have had the requisite intent, then he wasn't a target for indictment. That leads to the question whether it was reasonable that anyone else might have leaked the subject information, and if so who. At what point, precisely, in time, did Fitz come to the conclusion that there was no other potential leaker "at large", and/or at what point would a "reasonable prosecutor" necessarily have come to that conclusion ? I dunno.

And, how does that timeline compare to the timeline under which Fitz came to suspect or believe that one of people who'd interacted with the FBI/grandjury (Scooter) had committed at least one perjury (or perjury-like/light) offense. Again, I dunno.

All due respect to Mr. Boies (and to yourself), absent these details being spelt out/nailed down, it's improper and even foolish to tar Fitz. Maybe they are all nailed down (with references and bows and all). If so, I haven't seen them set forth on this thread (but that may be just my famed reading comprehension difficulties flaring up again.

"Why was no crime committed and how is it that Fitz knew this from early on? It must have something to do with a different element of the crime re: which the CIA made the referral in the first place ~ perhaps the element of intent (if that is an element of the offense)."

Intent is not relevant, if and only if the discloser is an official who has access to classified information. It is relevant if the disclosure is made by someone who does not, but has learned of the covert agent's status through his own inquiries. In that latter case, the government must prove that the perpetrator has engaged in 'a pattern of activity' intended to identify and make public the names of US covert officers.

See the Congressional Research Services' report on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The CRS is a famously nonpartisan service that supplies research and background to members of Congress. The transcript in this case is made available by the Federation of American Scientists, of which I am a member.

The reason that no crime was committed was that the CIA knew Plame was not a "covert agent" under the law as provided in the United States Code, 50 usc 426:

(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.

Plame joined the CIA's counterproliferation division at Langley in 1997; covert officers are not assigned to service at Langley due to the ease of their identification by foreign intelligence. The assignment to Langley marks the end to the "affirmative steps" required by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and was more than five years before the disclosure.

As a result, no crime related to the IIPA could have been committed by Armitage (or anyone else in this matter).

This should be no surprise; as the CRS report notes, "there do not appear to be any published cases involving prosecutions under this Act."

Fitzgerald did this to protect someone like Wilson and Armitage. Sometimes I wonder if there really is a conspiracy.

No, I don't want to discuss it.

[Grim]

You may well be right. And, I may be missing something, but I do not see how the "no covert status" argument jibes with what Attorney Boies remarked. Likewise, the "no covert status" argument seems, to me, to be inconsistent with the CIA referral in the first place, and anything longer than a week or so's worth of investigatory time at Justice, once the matter had been referred (much less the fact that that the recusal of the Atty General was felt to be necessary - likewise inconsistent with what some feel to be such an open-and-shut-case from the get-go.) Given such factors (including the previously mentioned fact that I view Boies as a superior attorney), I await further submittals on the question prior to drawing a conclusion that Fitz' investigation and prosecution, etc was the "travesty of justice" so-ballyhooed about on the right, at present.

I do not see how the "no covert status" argument jibes with what Attorney Boies remarked.

You don't see how "no covert status" jibes with Boies saying there was no underlying criminal violation? He came to the same conclusion. And he has no knowledge of Armitage's subjective intent, so your explanation is much more tenuous than the obvious one, which rests on easily verifiable facts - a publicly available statute and the known fact that she drove to work every day openly. That doesn't begin to touch the damning fact that Marty Peretz of the liberal New Republic said right when this happened that her "secret" identity was known to many in the Georgetown social set before Novak's article. Some super secret cover - that argument would have been destroyed in court on Day One.

Exactly where is this mysterious conflict, dgf?

The Atty. Gen recused himself because it gave the appearance of a conflict. That's pretty obvious given the partisan rancor at the time. No one would have accepted him as an impartial arbiter, especially if the charges were being dropped without an investigation. My guess is that he recused himself thinking that Fitz would do the right thing. look at the matter objectively, conclude no crime had been committed, and then an IMPARTIAL investigator with no known ties to the administration would have been the one to close the investigation. And that is the right way to go about something like this.

But that never happened.

"...to be inconsistent with the CIA referral in the first place, and anything longer than a week or so's worth of investigatory time at Justice, once the matter had been referred (much less the fact that that the recusal of the Atty General was felt to be necessary - likewise inconsistent with what some feel to be such an open-and-shut-case from the get-go.)"

You're not the only one who thinks it's inconsistent.

It is possible the CIA's internal lawyers simply said, "Let Justice make the determination; it's their field." And Justice may simply have said, "This is too hot a political issue; we should ask for a special prosecutor, rather than doing it internally." Fitzgerald got the case, but seems to have had no intention at any point of bringing charges under the IIPA.

Fitzgerald had an excellent reputation before this, and I'd hate to think bad of the gentleman. It is hard to see, however, how there can be any excuse for the events. I'd like to hear him explain himself. Perhaps he'll feel inclined, after the sentencing.

[Cass] You don't see how "no covert status" jibes with Boies saying there was no underlying criminal violation? * * * Exactly where is this mysterious conflict, dgf?

Re-read my earlier post. For content. That is, my recollection is that Boies stated his feelings that there was no underlying criminal violation, but he didn't seem to be basing that conclusion on the "no covert status" argument. (To make it easy - here's the (most) relevant portion of that post (in this regard): I do note that I seem to recall "super-lawyer" Boies expressing on Fox that he said that that was a difficult area of the law, and that it was an open question.)

[Grim] I agree that Fitz had a v/good reputation. As does Boies. Given this, and given the other inconsistencies mentioned, there is raised the suggestion that those who are touting the "travesty of justice" theme may have made some incorrect assumptions of fact and/or law. I'm sure you, for example, can undertake a denken-experiment on a factual assumption or two in this regard, which would erase the inconsistencies and the travesty meme.

That said, it also may turn out that Fitz is the nefarious putz Cassandra & others feverently know him to be.

Yo Lisa, interesting thing factoid.

Matt Lauer asked Madame Hillary back in 1998 whether, if the allegation was true, her husband should resign.

Madame Mao pondered with faux depth, and said yes, if true, it would be a serious matter indeed.

She admitted that Bill Clinton deserved his impeachment and that he should have resigned. Why won't you?

As I said, I'd like to hear his explanation.

As for thought experiments -- there has been some blog chatter, which I would tend to discount but which claims authority, that Plame was dispatched on some missions in the 2000s under her old NOC identity. (If you're interested in the details, I think it's mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Plame.) If that is true, the CIA may have been uncertain as to whether or not the IIPA applied, which would explain the referral.

It would not explain why the CIA would send someone assigned for years to Langley on a mission of that type. That would normally be terrible tradecraft, as it would expose the mission to a hugely increased likelihood of detection; but it may be that there are extenuating circumstances on the high side (i.e., in the classified information).

Still, as Fitzgerald apparently didn't expect to prosecute anyone under the IIPA, I assume either he or Justice disposed of the uncertainty at some point.

As I said in the post below, perjury is never excusable, least of all in a government official. I am, though, interested to hear how we got to this point.

[Grim] Still, as Fitzgerald apparently didn't expect to prosecute anyone under the IIPA

This is, I think, the second time you've made this assertion (or its like). In any event, are you asserting that from the get-go Fitz didn't expect to prosecute anyone under the IIPA, and if not from that time, from what time onwards? Are you suggesting (in making this assertion) that there is evidence that the "decision" not to so prosecute was calculated on something other than reasons legitimately within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion (other than, e.g., a conclusion that Armitage couldn't be convicted, or that a prosecution was counter-indicated on national security grounds, etc.)? If so, on what evidence/received knowledge are you relying, when you write: Still, as Fitzgerald apparently didn't expect to prosecute anyone under the IIPA

And yes, your denken-experiment was much along the lines of mine. (I hadn't known that it'd been touted about (not much of a plamegate-ophile myself), but it doesn't surprise me; it's not rocket science and it would explain what would otherwise seem to be rather odd prosecutorial acts and decisions. Re: the tradecraft issue, I've certainly got no special expertise in such matters, but to me it seems that there might be plenty of instances where the particular risk re: the particular task would easily be outweighed by the contemplated gain.)

Who knows what the truth is. Of course, it would be nice to know (especially from the horse's mouth) the ins and outs; but I wouldn't expect too much, if anything to be volunteered by Fitz (assuming the truth of some "timely" foreign "covert" mission(s) by Plame). Maybe yes, but maybe, well... maybe national security actually does counsel against much, if any, revelations in this regard. At least for now. (I imagine that the truth will out, eventually).

The facts, as we are discussing, are not all in the clear. I say apparently because it seems apparent from two main facts that we do know:

1) At no point did Fitzgerald attempt to bring any charges under the IIPA, and,

2) The delegation letter from Comey doesn't suggest the charges.

This letter, which constitutes Fitzgerald's actual authority under the law, never uses the words "covert" or "officer" (not, as I noted elsewhere, "agent," which is the term that the CIA uses for foreigners it employs).

If we were talking about an expected violation of the IIPA, you'd expect to see at least the word "covert" in there, if not an actual citation of the code section.

What he was charged to do was to find out if anything illegal happened in this disclosure of the employment of someone by the CIA. Even the DOJ doesn't seem to have believed, based on their delegation, that there was an IIPA issue; your favored law expert doesn't believe it; and I don't believe it, for whatever that's worth to you. The IIPA is a tightly-scripted law, which is why there has never been a prosecution under it (although someone once did plea-bargain to it, IIRC).

Now, to some degree that phrasing justifies the wider net -- if the IIPA isn't at issue, Fitzgerald is empowered to look for any sort of illegality in the disclosure. But there doesn't seem to have been any concern among the professionals that the IIPA was violated at any point.

[Grim]

I don't know what the "delegation letter" provides. Your link leads one to a memorandum (August 2005), not the delegation letter (there described as having issued in February 2004).

Nor do I know what one would "expect" to necessarily find in a "delegation letter" of the sort you put at issue. You seem to think that you do, and maybe you have a right to your opinion, based on particular experience or other data.

Absent rather more compelling evidence than has heretofore been provided, I reckon the delegation letter angle-as-evidence, a rather slim reed on which to draw any conclusions, tentative or not.

Re: Boies (my so-called "favored expert" - whatever that means (your words, not mine)), I only know what he was reported to have said on Fox, which (as I recall it) does not tend to support the notion that at no time in the investigation was the IIPA not in play (compare [Grim] "your favored law expert doesn't believe it [that there was an IIPA issue]* * * there doesn't seem to have been any concern among the professionals that the IIPA was violated at any point.) Indeed, rather the contrary, as I see it.

Whoops. Typo alert (them durn negatives can be tricky). Last post: ...does not tend to support the notion that at no time in the investigation was the IIPA not in play. . .: strike the last (here-bolded) not. (At least I think so. :))

Mark in Irvine -

You said Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI and obstructing a justice department investigation into a matter originally believed to affect national security.

The key word in your sentence is "originally" - as in, Fitzgerald knew before he even started his character destruction operation, that Libby was not responsible for doing anything that might have harmed national security. It is criminal that he chose to pretend that there was a case.

When I'm driving and I hear a loud noise from under the car, and I think I might have blown a tire, I stop and check. If all the tires are still inflated, I do not choose one and change it, just because I "originally" thought that it might be flat.

Did I cite the wrong letter? Sorry -- the text is almost identical in the original:

"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department."

See: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302582.htm

Mathmom,

You have no future as a lawyer, with that sort of attitude. Randomly changing tires is a "good thing" from a legal standpoint, I would think.

Good thing you're a "Mathmom". :)

MathMom,
I, personally, loved the analogy.
LOL

Don Brouhaha -

Yes, I absolutely forgot to think in terms of billable hours!

Sly2017 -

(*blush*) Thanks!

Yes, MathMom, how much would you have charged your client to check your tires while driving out to the Whitewater property?