Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it, and totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals. While there is a good-faith argument that Libby should go to prison for lying to the FBI or perjury, anybody who opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton cannot make the argument in good faith, unless they satisfactorily explain why it's okay when a Democrat does it.

> at what point during his investigation did
> he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's
> name was not a criminal offense?

Honest question: can you point to where Fitzgerald ever said that? I don't recall him doing so, but I could be wrong.

Assuming that my memory is correct (heh), Fitzgerald might know very well that a criminal offense did occur /but that he cannot prosecute it/. Which would make him a very honest prosecutor indeed.

Cranky

As Wonkette and the Washington Post detail, the conviction of Scooter Libby is providing many opportunities for fun and profit:

- "The Sentence Scooter Contest."

- "Guess Libby's Pardon Date, Win a T-Shirt."

Did he announce specifically that outing Plame did not violate any laws? I don't seem to recall that. If you could provide a citation, that would be helpful.

"There is a cloud over the Vice President."

I think Fitzgerald believes there was a crime, or even knows it. However, it will be unchargeable in part due to Libby's obstruction of justice.

I'm with CO and Derelict, why have you bought the spin "that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense"?

You seem to acknowledge later in the paragraph that that's not necessarily true, but what makes you ask the question that way?

FWIW, Fitzgerald has said that he's "100% certain" that Plame was covert, which contradicts the standard right wing talking point.

Come on, folks. Here's what I asked:

"And why did he come to that conclusion? Merely because he didn't feel he had enough evidence to convict anyone, or because he thought Plame's outing simply didn't violate federal law at all?"

That's pretty clearly stated, isn't it?

...anybody who opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton cannot make the argument in good faith, unless they satisfactorily explain why it's okay when a Democrat does it.

Absurd. Of course it's not "okay" when a Democrat lies to a grand jury.

The question is why was Clinton asked about a sexual affair in the first place during his grand jury testimony. The impeachment of Clinton began with an investigation into a real estate investment scandal, and ended with a desperate prosecutor seeking to charge Clinton with anything he could get his hands on...

What does a sexual affair that Clinton indeed lied about have to do with a real estate scandal? Nothing, of course. The point was to get Clinton in any way possible.

I don't know the answer to your question, Kevin, but an important point that I saw Matt Cooper make on the tube yesterday was this: Fitzgerald didn't see that there wasn't a prosecutable crime and plunge ahead for an administration scalp. By the time he came along there had already been some lying done to Federal investigators... he just followed through on that.

The need for Fitzgerald to explain himself is all the more critical because he has indicated that no further cases of any kind will be pursued.

Even the jury clearly didn't get why others weren't on trial.

I can't imagine that Fitzgerald can't find some way of addressing these issues to provide the public with some greater satisfaction with how things have been left in this whole mess.

Who on any side of the issue could possibly feel that justice has been served with this one very limited case?

V. P. was searching for WMD in Iraq, and not finding any, kept looking.

V.P was also privy to some of what Iran's WMD efforts was.

By decriminalizing her outing, the bushie's deflected the attention from "why DID we go to war?" to "who leaked to whom?"

I believe the whole investigation was always going to be a charade.

I hope the Wilson's make brazillions of dollars on the sales of their books!

Is our press happy now?

KD: "That's pretty clearly stated, isn't it?"

Yes, but your original question wasn't...

AssHat said: Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it, and totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals.

Please explain or cite dozens of Clinton scandals that Democrats closed investigations on. Please explain or cite dozens of Clinton scandals.

Your pathetic play calls out for an intervention.

I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

Outing Valerie Plame's name was never even suspected to be a criminal offense; as for outing her relationship to the CIA, well, as far as I know Fitzgerald has never said that it wasn't a criminal offense.

His not prosecuting anyone for it suggests that there may be evidentiary or logistical problems which make it unlikely that a criminal conviction could be secured, but that's not the same as him having concluded that no crime occurred.

Its sadly ironic that you advance this right-wing talking point that you've bought hook, line, and sinker and spend most of the post talking about it when the post starts out with criticizing the Washington Post editorial board for its uncritical repetition of right-wing talking points.

Didn't he say at the press conference that he was "100%" confident that Plame was covert?

Kevin,

Fitzgerald has already explained this in his press conference after the indictment of Libby.
That's what the 'sand in my eyes' allusion is all about. He explained that the crime of outing a CIA agent is difficult to prosecute, particularly because 'intent' to harm the US is one of the factors that must be proved. In this case he felt the better chance for a successful prosecution involved the perjury and obstruction charges. In fact, the 'intent' to hurt the US was to most observers not at play in this case. Whatever damage that was done to US security was a secondary result and not a primary motivation.

because he didn't feel he had enough evidence to convict anyone, or because he thought Plame's outing simply didn't violate federal law at all?

But he can't really answer that question, Kevin, especially if the answer is that he didn't have enough evidence: we can't have prosecutors tarring people unless they have plenty of evidence. If lack of evidence is the answer (and it probably is), then the right thing for Fitzgerald to do is to say nothing.

Over at FDL there is a strain of Fitz-worship that I find quite disturbing. I have my doubts about Fitzgerald, related to his use of the Patriot Act and his indictment of a girlfriend on nugatory charges in order to squeeze a ladder-target.

But I will say this for him: his absolute prohibition of leaks, and his willingness to _not_ indict, speak very highly of him as an honest law-enforcement officer. Perfect choice for Director of the FBI under any of the possible Democratic Presidents.

Cranky

Come on, folks. Here's what I asked:

Strange, you left out the question that you are being criticized for:

I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

The simple fact is, Patrick Fitzgerald did not, at any time or in any manner, suggest that he concluded that revealing Valerie Plame's relationship to the Central Intelligence Agency was not a criminal offense. He therefore cannot owe anyone any explanation for that, as there is no evidence that it ever occurred in the first place.

"at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?"

Kevin, unless I missed something Fitzgerald never said that he had concluded any such thing. What's with the false premise?

Kevin, I think you're misunderstanding the commenters' confusion, which has to do with this statement in your post:

" . . . at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?"

Are you saying here that Fitzgerald determined that outing a covert agent is not a criminal act? Or are you simply saying that he decided not to prosecute anyone for outing Valerie Plame?

Sorry Kevin. I know you mean well, but you made an error.

Your question:
at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

By its terms assumes that Fitzgerald concluded it was not a criminal offense. That is not supported, anywhere, by facts. As others pointed out, it is more likely that Fitzgerald simply could not PROVE a crime in the outing, given Scooter's obstruction.

Language is important, especially where, as here, there is an aggressive spin operation coming from the GOP and Libby supporters.

Just correct the wording of the post and be done with it.

Thanks.

Hey, I've got an idea!

Why don't we ask the CIA if a damage assessment report was done after Brewster-Jennings was exposed as a front company?

Why not ask the Bush Administration if they could declassify such a report, if it exists, to see if this whole episode had any real-world national security impact?

What do you think the Bushies' response would be?

Kevin, when did you stop taking checks from the AEI for writing on this blog?

Were the AEI checks large enough to influence what you wrote? Or were there no AEI checks at all?

Is that "pretty clearly stated" enough for you?

Your original question ("at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?") assumes something which you know may not to be true (as evidenced by your "pretty clearly stated" later question).

"I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?"

I've never seen him quoted to that effect, instead what I think he decided is that he could not get a conviction, partly because libby and others lied, and partly because they were able to hide behind the official secrets wall. not bringing a case because you know you can't present sufficient evidence to support it is perfectly proper, it isn't enough for the prosecution to know a crime has been committed.

> Strange, you left out the question that
> you are being criticized for:

And, Kevin Drum-like, he will never admit that error. Kinda funny for a guy who criticizes Cheney so much. Bless his heart.

Cranky

I've always assumed that Fitzpatrick couldn't prosecute the actual crime because all the issues involved with using classified information would have allowed the defense to monkeywrench everything.

Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it

What a fucking tool you are, Bulgarian Chicken.

We don't need illegal aliens like you here. If you don't like America, you treasonous piece of shit, go back to Sofia and serve your time like a man.

I never trusted Fitzgerald. Why is he still on the job? The answer is because Bush wanted him there. Fitzgerald allowed Rove to correct his statements 5 times. Unpresecdented in any legal proceedings. Well, it is over now.

No need to jump all over his case man; it's a wording error, which needs to be fixed, but I don't think Kevin intended it that way.

And American Douche can go suck Anne Coulter's dick!

hey... American chickenHawk... you lost it on the first sentence fragment, "Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it"

First, Clinton did not commit perjury. Period. He was asked very specific questions, with very specific definitions, to which he gave correct, factually correct answers. perjury has a specific definition, look it up. Clinton did not commit that act.

Second, even IF he did commit perjury, (which he did not) equating his theoretical perjury, about a consensual sex act, with perjury about the outing of an undecover CIA agent, (in a time of war no less, as you all like to yelp when it suits you) is dishonest. Libby's perjury is way more serious. He committed a felony to cover up a a treasonous act. that you even consider defending him, and this administration, shows that you really are not an american... not one that deserves to be anyways...

The real problem with just leaving the Plame outing episode with this one limited case is that it seems completely incoherent.

Those who see the conviction of Libby as an injustice regard the lack of an underlying crime as telling against the fairness of the prosecution. Those who see the conviction of Libby ALONE as wrong regard the failure to bring in others who participated in the scheme as a miscarriage of justice.

Neither side can be satisfied with the outcome. It seems incoherent to all.

Perhaps there's an explanation that makes that apparent incoherence go away. But Fitzgerald has an obligation to provide it as best he can given the constraints he operates under as a prosecutor.

He's not allowed to talk about the evidence he compiled against people he didn't indict, but he can talk about his team's legal reasoning and its understanding of the federal statutes involved. And he should.

Why? Talking about abstract legal reasoning will not tell anyone why he decided not prosecute unless he also discusses what evidence he did or did not collect against people that were not indicted, which, by your own description, isn't allowed. Further, while the case is inactive barring the emergence of new evidence, that does not mean it is dead, and publicly revealing what factors led to the decision not to prosecute yet could make it less likely that the additional evidence that would change that decision surfaces.

At the very least, discussing anything he can discuss before the Libby sentencing would likely be grossly premature; and even after that, it might be contrary to the interests of justice.

This talking point keeps getting mentioned, but all that we truly know is that no indictment has been brought. We do not know that anyone decided there was no crime.

There certainly are plenty of loopholes in the statute that could get people off: was the outing intentional? did the accused know of the covert status?.

What we know is that Libby was willing to risk jail. It seems safe to say that even if he knew a loophole that would get Cheney off the hook legally, he was more concerned with avoiding the political fallout of an indicted Vice President heading into the 2004 election.

> Perhaps there's an explanation that makes that
> apparent incoherence go away. But Fitzgerald has
> an obligation to provide it as best he can given
> the constraints he operates under as a
> prosecutor.

Actually, under Federal rules Fitzgerald has an obligation NOT to talk about anything he can't reasonably prosecute. It was Kenneth Starr who violated every one of these rules and norms. As I said upthread, I really respect Fitzgerald for taking this approach - I imagine he could make a book deal for $3 million easy, and his team members $500k/each. He specifically said that ain't happening.

At the same time, I think Fitzgerald _did_ give a hint of where he thinks the follow-up could occur: in an impeachment hearing. Which tends to indicate that he thinks he can only indict Cheney (or Bush) on very clear evidence he doesen't have (obstruction of justice, remember) but that the issue could be handled politically. Again, the way the Constitution intended - but we haven't had much of that behavior since 2000 have we?

Cranky

Kevin,

I really think you are off base on this one. If you are going to ask, ever so clearly:"at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?" you need to provide some evidence that he came to this conclusion. He said in his press conference he was 100% sure Plame was covert. That he does not have enough evidence to indict someone does not mean he has come to the conclusion that a crime was not committed.

Boy, Dick Cheney is sure a stand up guy. Shots one best friend in the face with a shotgun and instead of going to the hospital with him goes home to have a martini to cover up the beer buzz. Now he has another good friend and subordinate facing a long stay in club fed to cover up for Cheney shooting his mouth off recklessly about the identity of a CIA agent. With a friend like Dick . . .

Kevin,
The criminal referral suggests that the outing was a crime. But it would not be appropriate for Fitz to say publicly that Rove (for example) had committed the crime. Why not? Because prosecutors should not make accusations unless they are willing to prove those accusions.

If Fitz had the evidence to convict, then he would have indicted. Since he did not, he said nothing.

It would be hard to imagine that Fitzgerald did not see that the crime of leaking the name of a cover agent had been committed. Why were these crimes not charged? My guess is that Fitzgerald wanted to be very confident of a conviction in a case whose profile could not be harder. He did not want a long trial with a high probability of an acquittal. An element of the crime of leaking is proof that the leaker was aware of the status of the agent. Hard to prove the thoughts of the leaker. And open to bald faced lies. Knowing this, Fitzgerald played it safe and prosecuted charges which were easier to prove.

Kevin

You should be more interested in the release of the testimony of the POTUS and the VP. Even though it was not given under oath, it will clear up lot more stuff than any clearification or enlightenment on legal basis of his judgment that Fitzerald might be able to provide.

at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

Ah Kevin,

Maybe you should go back to his October 28th, 2005 press conference. Either a crime was not committed, they are unsure who committed it, it was not deemed proveable, or it was decided for another reason that the crime should not be charged. It's pretty clear that Fitzgerald will not be issuing statements concerning unindicted individuals or uncharged crimes as it would cast specific or general prejudice against individuals outside the justice system.

He's not an independent counsel or partisan mud slinging device. Sometimes silence is just the sound of someone doing their job.

Shorter father1:

Shoots one best friend in the face and stabs another in the back.

"I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?"

The answer is: When the President or Vice President (or on their behalf by proxies) asserted that they had declassified the information which formed the basis of the criminal offense. Note that the "declassification" can be done at any time for any reason by these two constitutional officers with no administrative controls or checks to this power.

Even if Fitzgerald has reason to believe that the declassification was done after the possible criminal offense, he can't prosecute for this.

The offense would be by the President or the VP and Fitzgerald can't prosecute them. They are constitutional officers who can only be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. (Which, by the way wingnuts, is what distinguishes the legal consequences of Libby's acts from the acts of Clinton.)

Sorry to gang up on you Kevin, but the other comments from nepeta, cmdicely, etc. are on the mark. Fitzgerald never said that outing Plame wasn't a crime or that damage wasn't done.

I don't seem to have the link, but I've seen transcripts of his explanation of this from the press conf. on the day he announced the indictments. He made it clear that convictions under the Espionage Act are rare and difficult to secure (and contrary to David Corn and also the Right Wing machine's fixation on the IIPA law, that's the law really that'd be use to prosecute leakers), and there's no real reason to waste time and effort on that when you've got Libby cold on perjury, lying, and obstruction.

In short, Fitz's response would probably be something to the effect of "the very reason Libby was in hot water is BECAUSE his obstructions and lies made it hard to prosecute Rove and Cheney for outing Plame."

Clinton committed perjury in a civil case. Lewis committed perjury in a criminal investigation. I’m not a lawyer, but the distinction between criminal and civil is generally a big one.

American Hawk claims the D’s shut down dozens of investigations into Clinton scandals. Strange, as I remember it, Ken Starr spent several tens of millions of dollars and ended up convicting Webster Hubble of over-billing (sort of puts the performance of the recently fire U.S. attorney’s into perspective). Starr also felt he had a strong case against Webster Hubble’s dog, but was talked out of issuing an indictment.

The Washington Post is a piece of crap.

Prosecutors think they are gods. Even though Fitzgerald may have done the right thing and exposed some of the lying and intelligence manipulation of the Cheney White House, one has to wonder what his real motives were and why has not the more serious crime of outing a CIA operative been properly addressed.

at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

And to think, Kevin, that I thought you were actually paying attention to this process for the last 3 years.

Fitz, clearly thought that it was a crime. He stated so on a couple of occasions (most notably the presser upon filing charges against Libby) but he said that it wasn't a matter of what he thought but what he could prove.

The law is pretty much impossible to prosecute as you must prove that the intent of the person exposing the NOC. Good luck with that.

Shorter: He did think it was a violation, but could not prove intent.

No need to jump all over his case man; it's a wording error, which needs to be fixed, but I don't think Kevin intended it that way.

Sure, but when it was pointed out to him, he responded with a loaded-with-tone insistence that it was clear as daylight. Look, others are right--Kevin cannot wonder when or why Fitz came to a "conclusion" that he's not been shown to hold.

And Kevin certainly can't go further to imply that a Fitz believes a crime may have been committed in outing her, which Kevin does by broaching the possibility that Fitzgerald "didn't feel he had enough evidence to convict anyone," and then expect that phrase to coexist with the statement, "conclude that outing VP was not a criminal offense." This is a contradictory, ill-conceived post throughout.

Over at FDL there is a strain of Fitz-worship that I find quite disturbing. I have my doubts about Fitzgerald, related to his use of the Patriot Act and his indictment of a girlfriend on nugatory charges in order to squeeze a ladder-target.

Its penis worship - fitz was in on the coverup from the git-go.

The answer is: When the President or Vice President (or on their behalf by proxies) asserted that they had declassified the information which formed the basis of the criminal offense. Note that the "declassification" can be done at any time for any reason by these two constitutional officers with no administrative controls or checks to this power.

Even if Fitzgerald has reason to believe that the declassification was done after the possible criminal offense, he can't prosecute for this.

Certainly he could, if he thought he could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the declassification had not occurred at the time of the offense.

The offense would be by the President or the VP and Fitzgerald can't prosecute them.

False. Fitzgerald cannot prosecute the President while he is in office, but the Vice President does not have the same immunity, hence the indictment of Spiro Agnew for tax evasion and money laundering.

They are constitutional officers who can only be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

While civil officers (which extends beyond "Constitutional officers") may be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate, neither civil officers, nor "Constitutional officers" aside from the President, are immune to federal criminal process during their tenure in office.

Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it,

Equating lying about consenual sex vs. lying about national security issues?

I thought it would take at least 4 comments before we saw the moral relativism argument being made.

How's about changing your pseudonym to "American Stretch"

Fitzgerald knows who publicly revealed Plame's name to the public. Most of these these people have admitted to their role in this. It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed.

Clinton committed perjury in a civil case. Lewis committed perjury in a criminal investigation. I’m not a lawyer, but the distinction between criminal and civil is generally a big one.

Its certainly pretty big, in terms of where perjury occurs, in the federal sentencing guidelines.

Yikes, when editing your comments, it good to actually reread them again, just once. My comment should have read:

Fitzgerald knows who revealed Plame's name to the public. Most of these these people have admitted to their role in this. It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed.

Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing...

You really don't grasp how the Gestapo runs its Mafia do you?

Here's a hint:

We owe you nothing...
You owe us more tax breaks...

Fitzgerald knows who publicly revealed Plame's name to the public.

Perhaps.

Most of these these people have admitted to their role in this.

Some people have acknowledged some roles. Without knowing the actual roles of everyone involved, concluding that "most" of the relevant people have "admitted" their actual roles is somewhat premature.

It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed.

While it may be a plausible conclusion, it certainly isn't one that has any particular grounds to recommend it over plausible alternatives, such as a cloud over the claimed declassification timeline which would prevent an evidentiary barrier in proving a critical fact relevant to establish criminality, or other evidentiary or logistical concerns affecting the prospects for prosecution whatever Fitzgerald believes the relevant facts to be.

"at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense? Was it early in the investigation? Not til the end?"

Fitzgerald probably never concluded that outing Plame was not a criminal offens-- just that he couldn't prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Fitzgerald knows who revealed Plame's name to the
> public. Most of these these people have admitted
> to their role in this. It is a fair conclusion
> that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald
> felt that there was no crime committed.

One of the major themes in US politics is that conspiracies are not possible, becuase someone will always break/talk. If the stakes are high enough and the people know each other well enough, I see no reason why this should be true. And in fact tight organized crime rings are very difficult to break even when the police have full subponea power over the physical evidence.

So an equally-likely (and perhaps simpler) explanation is that Fitzgerald (a) knows what happened (b) knows that the members of the conspiracy will never break/talk. Libby slipped, so Fitzgerald pounced on the opportunity, but he knows no one else will make that mistake.

Cranky

American Hawk: "Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it, and totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals."

Suffice to say that while you have the right to voice your own opinion, ignorant as it is, that right is not a license to re-write history with your own set of "facts".

When Libby was indicted Fitzgerald said it's as if sand was thrown into the umpires eyes.....there's your answer Kevin.

It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed.

This conclusion will be made by monopolist newspapers and other media to frame public opinion about the White House outing a CIA undercover operative. I think it is why Mr. Drum wants Fitzgerald to give an explicit explanation about why this crime has not been prosecuted.

Fitzgerald may, as others have written, have thought he would not be able to secure a conviction for breaking a poorly written law. It would be nice, though, if a public servant could communicate with the people he serves and provide a concise and definitive explanation for not seeking to prosecute for the more serious crime that is well understood, by many, has occurred.

Kevin is using his marketing background to probe the consensus on this. He knows why Fitzgerald didn`t go any further than he did. He just wants to do a research campaign on what folks that read his blog think. (maybe he is trying to see what sort of magazine articles might be "hits")

Leading the witness one might say.

On topic, I think that much patience is needed because "it ain`t over till the fat lady sings" & I suggest that she hasn`t even arrived at the theatre yet.

Keep your powder dry folks, lots still to come.

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." - Niccoló Machiavelli

Cranky Observer: One of the major themes in US politics is that conspiracies are not possible, becuase someone will always break/talk. If the stakes are high enough and the people know each other well enough, I see no reason why this should be true. And in fact tight organized crime rings are very difficult to break even when the police have full subponea power over the physical evidence.

You make me wish I could draw. I'd create a cartoon involving Cheney and the word omertà.

Patrick Fitzgerald has said that he will make the grand jury evidence available to Congress if asked.

The answer to all of Kevin's questions is right there. At what point did Congress decide that no crime was commited and they don't need to know what happened or see the testimony and other evidence that was gathered? Why is Congress so very afraid of seeing any impeachable offenses that they are practically walking around with blindfolds on?

And there is the growing sleaze factor surrounding Barack Obama.

But we don't want to talk about that, do we?

Yancey Ward: "It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed."

No, it isn't.

It is, however, a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed that he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I would suggest that you read Mr. Fitzgerald's summation in the Libby trial's transcript and re-visit his public comments following the jury's verdict.

Fitzgerald may, as others have written, have thought he would not be able to secure a conviction for breaking a poorly written law.

The IIPA isn't that poorly written, it is just not designed, principally, to address conspiracies that reach to the top of the executive branch and that remain protected by senior executive officials.

How about this.Fitz could have went after Cheney and Rove,at most they would have got a slap on the wrist ok.Now he left it open for congress to open up a investagation in which Cheny could be impeached,Somthing Fitz would not be able to do.He seemed to allude to that point I think.

Good gracious. Good heavens. Wow. I just read the Washington Post editorial to which Kevin linked. Everybody must go read this.

It reads like it was written by our commenter AL. It blows my mind.

Kevin, your “shorter� statement characterizing this editorial is a huge understatement. For one thing, it is a complete hatchet job on Joe Wilson, and totally misrepresents the Senate intelligence committee report by reference to the additional, exclusively Republican, remarks to the report.

If I were to make a “shorter� remark about this editorial, I would say the editorial seeks to validate every alleged fact and view of the Plame scandal promulgated by the wingnuts.

Go read it, it's amazing.

Go easy on the Hawkster. Have pity on him. After supporting Bush and Cheney he's having to watch the slow motion self-destruction of the conservative movement, the GOP, the religious right, etc.

And what does he have left? Nothing but the pretense that "Clinton was worse!". And to use that defense he has to, first, decide that Clinton's behavior defines his moral standard, with "better than Clinton" being good and "worse than Clinton" being bad. Second, he has to not just use Bill Clinton as a moral ruler, he has to use the right-wing parody of Clinton as a moral ruler, or else he'd have to admit that many of his "heroes" are really corrupt self-serving liars who have played him for the fool from the start. And third, even after adopting Bill Clinton as the basis for his moral standard and even after having to take the most wingnutty of interpretations of Clinton's behavior, he has to pretend that lying about a blowjob is every bit as serious as lying to cover up the Vice President's efforts to avoid anyone scrutinizing the contrived rationale used to commit us to a poorly-planned war in Iraq that has cost the lives of thousands of American troops.

Pity him.

Please read the whole post. Keven may have been unclear in the opening question, but unambiguously stated the question later as whether Fitzgerald's decision not to prosecute the outing was an evidentiary choice or a conclusion that same was not a crime.

My opinion is that many of the leakers involved were fed the information with the critical detail regarding her status omitted. As such, they did not know she was covert and therefore did not judge the leak as damaging to security. However, the Vice President, and most likely Libby as well, either knew or were criminally reckless in failing to know and to the extent they deliberately fed the information to others to make the leak happen, were guilty of the specific crime.

Proving the Vice President and Libby's knowledge of this is exactly where the perjury makes prosecution of the point difficult. Libby's testimony as a convicted perjurer is worthless, and the Vice President is not talking.

The other day was not the first time that Fitz mentioned the cloud over the Vice President's office. He long said that in order to remove that cloud witnesses have to come forward with the truth. Unless they do, there is no way to either determine if a law has been broken or to remove the cloud of suspicion. That justifies his perjury indictments. Beyond that he doesn't feel he needs to explain his actions. He is not a special prosecutor so doesn't need to make a report.

Lets face it Kevin,

When the liberal Washington Post is against your left of center stand, its time to throw in the towel. Maybe now we can rewrite the special prosecutor law so that we have no more investigations like whitewater, plame-gate etc. whose tangents just lend the power of the justice department to battles which should be fought in the political arena. I for one am sick of special prosecutors. I don't think the criminalization of political bickering makes the country better off.

Kevin, I remember Fitzgerald saying something like.

"For a criminal prosecution, you have to prove intent...which goes into state of mind...hard to prove"

Hence the perjury prosecution..

jussumbody >"...Why is Congress so very afraid of seeing any impeachable offenses that they are practically walking around with blindfolds on?"

No one wants to derail the Beltway Gravy Train.

Woo Woo, Choo, Chooo !

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." – Buckminster Fuller

Kevin: . . . at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?

Did Fitzgerald actually conclude this or are you simply imputing this conclusion to him?

> Maybe now we can rewrite the special
> prosecutor law

The special prosecutor law expired prior to Fitzgerld's appointment. Fitz was called in as a disinterested prosecutor by his superior officers in the Justice Dept - in exactly the same way that a Federal prosecutor from another state was called in to Missouri last year to investigate an allegation which might have touched on the DA who would otherwise have taken the case, and just as can be done in any district to avoid conflict of interest. It really wouldn't be possible for a Washington-based DA to investigate an alleged crime which had the potential to engulf the entire Washington establishement.

So there is nothing to "re-write"; the system worked as intended.

Cranky

Any sound legal prosecution of the crime would require proving that Plame's CIA connection was classified at the time of the leak. Since the President had delegated declassification power to Cheney, and Cheney was at the heart of the leaking campaign, proving that would be tricky, since a)he might have declassified it, real-time or retroactively, and b)he might choose to say he'd done it even if he hadn't. Any documentation on that point would logically be classified itself, and access could be denied on a national security basis, which courts have typically been unwilling to overrrule. So Fitzgerald could have spent months in court battles just to get access to the evidence to prove that one part of the case, only to probably lose before the Supreme Court, and be stymied.

Don't people remember when it seemed like the Libby trial might even get derailed by 'national security' secrecy issues?

The laws about leaking agent's identity aren't written to cope with the idea that the Vice-President would be central to the effort to do it. Imagine, assuming that the Vice President wouldn't cavalierly burn CIA assets to strike back a guy for publishing an op-ed. How naive.

Several commenters have said as much but I'll pile on...

There's a difference between saying "that outing Valerie Plame's name was not a criminal offense?" and saying that a conviction cannot be obtained (and therefore an indictmant would be a bad move.)

After all, the whole rationale for military tribunals for terrorist suspects is that you can't try someone in open court if all the evidence is classified!

Here are the facts, for the few -- the very, very few -- who don't already know them and for those who may need reminding:

"September 20, 2000

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Independent Counsel Robert Ray, in his final report reviewing the 1970s-era Whitewater real estate partnership, said Wednesday that there was insufficient evidence that either President Clinton or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

"'This office has determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct ... or knew of such conduct," Ray said in a news release issued by the Office of the Independent Counsel after his report on the Whitewater matter went to a federal three-judge panel Wednesday morning.'"

If you need more, just Google for Final Whitewater Report.

John, Fitz wasn't a special prosecutor. If he was he would have had to publish a report and Kevin would have had his answers. He is a Federal prosecutor, investigating allegations by the CIA that a crime was committed. The Justice Department assigned Fitz to the case. He could have determined that no crime had been committed and eliminated the cloud of the OVP if only Libby had not started fabricationg things wholesale. I don't know why Libby did that, maybe he has a condition.

Maybe now we can rewrite the special prosecutor law so that we have no more investigations like whitewater, plame-gate etc.

What special prosecutor law? The independent counsel law under which Ken Starr's fishing expedition was conducted expired without being renewed.

I don't think the criminalization of political bickering makes the country better off.

I. Lewis Libby was not convicted for political bickering.

Kevin: That's pretty clearly stated, isn't it?

No, it isn't, especially after you've claimed he came to that conclusion.

There is a third possibility: he had the evidence, but was afraid the prosecution would go nowhere because of greymail.

He did explain, he stated that Libby's perjury "through sand in the eyes" of the investigation.

That's pretty damn clear to me. What exactly is your problem?

I don't think the criminalization of political bickering makes the country better off.

You trollies are priceless. Keep pretending this is political bickering and equating outing a CIA NOC working in the area of WMD during wartime with a blowjob. Gregory's right, the Republicans won't be trusted with national security for a generation.

After all, the whole rationale for military tribunals for terrorist suspects is that you can't try someone in open court if all the evidence is classified!

Which, it should not be overlooked, is completely false; the civilian courts in the US have extensive procedures for dealing with classified evidence for the express purposes of allowing them to deal with crimes related to national security.

There is a fourth possibility: he had the evidence on Cheney, but believed that putting the Vice President on trial or asking Congress, for most of the investigation and trial a GOP-controlled Congress, to impeach Cheney so he could be tried would be more effort and more damaging to the country, at a time when the focus needed to be on Iraq and getting us out of there, than a benefit to justice.

Why do you keep ignoring possibilities that have nothing to do with a conclusion that no crime occurred or there was insufficient evidence, Kevin?

And there is the growing sleaze factor surrounding Barack Obama

WTF? Why, did he speak at CPAC?

Sorry Kevin, but even as reworded your question assumes facts not in evidence.

Cranky

LowLife: I don't know why Libby did that, maybe he has a condition.

The condition is Bush Infatuation Syndrome (BIS).

Or maybe TLDATCD (The Law Doesn't Apply To Conservatives Disease).

There is a third possibility. Fitz might have decided that violations of the IIPA were not indictable, because no trial would have been possible due to greymail. Libby tried to convince the judge that he needed access to secret information to prepare his defence. If Walton had agreed, Libby would be free as the White House, would, of course, refuse to release the information.

A trial on the underlying outing necessarily involves secret information. With [accomplices] ehm political allies of the accused deciding what secret information could be released, there is basically no chance of a trial even if there was proof that a crime was committed.

Kevin, now that you've changed your wording, your meaning is clear. The previous phrasing was misleading. No need to be huffy about it -- a little editing is a wonderful thing.

Now that I understand what you were asking, I can say that Fitzgerald did indeed explain why he was proscecuting anyone for the crime of outing Valerie Plame, back when he indicted Libby. As one or more of your many commenters have already pointed out, Fitzgerald referred repeatedly to Libby's obstruction of justice as a very serious offense because it prevented anyone from finding out the truth of what really happened. I don't think you need much more of an explanation than that, and I don't understand why you feel such a burning need -- unless, perhaps, you think a little grandstanding from Fitzgerald would do something to apply pressure to the White House?

Chickenhawk: "Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it..."

Spoken like a man who's never had a blowjob.

By the way, have you suited up for the army yet? C'mon, Hawk, let's get a-killin'!

at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not an indictable offense?

Kevin, your correction hasn't changed anything, since "indictable offense" is a legal classification of particular criminal offenses; Fitzgerald has never determined that the leak was not a criminal offense nor has he determined that the leak was not in the more specific category of indictable offenses. He simply has not proscuted anyone for it at this time, and has stated the investigation is now "inactive" until and unless further evidence emerges.

(Further the leak that would be criminal is not the leak of Valerie Plame's name, but of her relation to the CIA.)

Perhaps if you'd be less defensive and snarky toward your critics, you could actually correct the substantive problems with the question, instead of pretending that the problem was just the poor choice of a single word which is replaced with another word that makes no substantive, relevant change in the meaning of the question, and retains the same false premise.

I have to chime in with the rest of the chorus here:

When did Fitzgerald say that there was no crime? When did he outright say this?

From what I've seen, what I've heard, this Libby case was prosecuted because Libby's lying and perjury prevented Fitzgerald from being able to judge exactly that: Whether there was a crime, and if so, who did it, why, and who helped him.

Libby's obfustications made pursuing that case impossible, thus the trial.

And when was it said that there were no more investigations?

I agree with biggerbox.

A prosecutor's job is to win a conviction. The problem with bringing charges involving classified material is that the defense can use "graymail": they can demand access to vast amounts of classified material to defend themselves, the executive branch can deny access on national security grounds, and the trial shuts down.

Blatantly lying to a grand jury, on the other hand, is a slam dunk. It's the same reason Al Capone was put away for tax evasion, it was the charge that could be made to stick.

Spoken like a man who's never had a blowjob.

Whaddya mean "like"?

Just a darned minute! Before we let the righties have the point that Clinton lied about "having sex", I want to rehash some arguments that were quickly swept aside in the rush to get the president.

I believe a large majority of people would agree: fellatio might be described as “indulging in sexual activity�, but “having sex� means penetration alone.

It sure did when I was a young-un. If you were asked, “Did you have sex?� It meant only one thing.

It still does. I heard an NPR interview with a high school girl the other day who said (approximately), “Giving head is no bigger deal than sucking on a lollipop. But I won’t have sex. I won’t have my body violated.�

Clinton was not splitting hairs. He did not “have sex� with Monica and they actually kept their encounters to fellacio only so he wouldn't have to lie.

So why was the distinction, which appears to hold up both legally and culturally, so quickly and roundly overrun? Easy. The Republicans wanted to get Clinton by any means and the media wanted those headlines. Who could speak sense to such a juggarnaught! In the years between the Spanish American war and the run-up to the current one, it was the darkest day for American politics and journalism.

Fitzgerald's modus operandi in his high-profile Illinois corruption investigations has always been to go after the small fish first, get them convicted and facing hard jail time, then get them to turn state's evidence on their bosses for lesser sentences. In this way, he gradually works his way up the food chain, and eventually convicts the big fish.

In the Libby case, Scooter is the small fish. Fitz said yesterday his investigation of the big fish is "inactive" at present. If Scooter were really facing serious jail time, he would be looking to cut a deal now with Fitz to sell out Rove and Cheney.

Unfortunately, in this case, Scooter has a "get out of jail free" card to play -- a Presidential pardon. There's not much Fitzgerald can do about that. There's no downside for W. in pardoning Scooter -- he's not running for office anymore, and could care less about public opinion.

The pardon deal was consummated right after Libby's defense opened their case with Libby as a "scapegoat." By cutting this deal, the White House avoided subjecting Cheney to cross-examination and secured a promise that Libby wouldn't testify. For the rest of the trial, Libby's lawyers never repeated the "scapegoat" claim. In fact, they didn't really put up much of a defense at all. They didn't need to -- they had what they wanted. Loyal Scooter had fallen on his sword to protect his bosses, and will eventually walk away a free man.

Depending on how his appeals play out, Scooter may well end up in jail for a time. W. can't pardon him until the very end of his term. If he pardoned Scooter now, Fitz could immunize Libby from prosecution and require him to testify against his bosses. If Libby refused, or lied again, Fitz could bring more charges against him.

heh. A little bit of bubble-pricking from the wapo and the usual suspects go batshit.

"reality based" my ass.

By the way, have you suited up for the army yet? C'mon, Hawk, let's get a-killin'!

The coward isn't even a real American; what makes you think that he is a real Hawk? I any case, I doubt that the military will take a man with undescended testicles.

Further and further into their own little fantasy world.

Fine. Let them stay on the defensive. That's an advantage.
.

am, both the bubble and pricking are all in your head. You realize that you are laughing about American soldiers dying for a lie. But by all means, keep enjoying the folly.

So I've changed a word in the post to make it even clearer. Call off the dogs, folks.

Props for making the change, Kevin, but your original wording was poor, to say the least, you're rightly called on it, and you say "call off the dogs"? Who do you think you are, Broder or Brooks What gives?

The WaPo certainly has a better understanding of this "scandal" than most the commenters here have.

The change from "criminal" to "indictable" changes nothing, as cmdicely points out. As it stands, KD's post is self-contradictory.

It would have been fair to simply point out that "a cloud" remains on this case because nobody was indicted for the underlying crime. (Why not Armitage?) There are many valid reasons why this did not happen, and the country needs to know (even though prosecutorial protocol requires otherwise). Perhaps someone in Fitzgerald's team will leak the truth. (After all, leaks don't seem to be indictable, right?)

Is it just me or has the Wapo become a terrible - I mean REALLY terrible - newspaper? I mean, there was a time when it actually INVESTIGATED wrong doing in the White House. Now, it just seems constantly at pains to cover up for it. What the Hell happened to a once great newspaper?

> There's not much Fitzgerald can do about that.
> There's no downside for W. in pardoning Scooter --
> he's not running for office anymore, and could
> care less about public opinion.

Well, there is one thing he could have done: issue his indictment of Libby prior to November 2004, rather than waiting until January 2005. To me _that_ is the cloud that hovers over Fitzgerald.

Cranky

Now, it just seems constantly at pains to cover up for it. What the Hell happened to a once great newspaper?

Where the money is most concentrated is where newspapers seek readership, because its the most bang for the buck in securing the advertising dollars on which they survive.

Defending an administration nakedly devoted to the service of the presently wealthy is, therefore, quite natural and good business, at least in the short run, even if not particularly honest or good for the country.

Since we are interested in putting away those who commit perjury I think they should go back and prosecute Joe Wilson for lying to a congressional committee while under oath.

The jury foreman: "We convicted Libby because we really know Cheney was behind it."

And to think most of the people here would agree with that progression of thought.

Was Libby a big fish here or is this just another example of the Bush hatred syndrom taking down anyone they can lie about?

It's irrelevant when Fitzgerald decided he didn't have enough to bring a prosecution on the criminality of Libby's revealing Valerie Plame's undercover status to the public. If witnessess who may have committed the crime being investigated lie to the FBI or a Grand Jury, they make it harder, maybe impossible to know if the crime has been committed, no? That's why we have the crime of obstruction of justice. "Obstructing justice"--it means the liar has blocked or obstructed the investigation of a crime. Patrick Fitzgerald painstakingly explained that obvious legal principle the day he indicted Libby in 2005, he explained during the Libby trial, and he explained it yesterday in the post-verdict news conference on the courthouse steps. If potential defendants lie to investigators, they MUST be prosecuted. This is obvious to anyone with common sense.

As David Corn points out in his Nation column today, if such lying were ignored as the Washington Post, the National Review and all the rest of the right-wing smear machine are now arguing, how many potential defendants do you think would tell the truth to investigators or Grand Juries? I'll tell you: NONE.

And to all the right-wing Libby defenders, what happened to your "rule of law" arguments during Bill Clinton's prosecution for obstructing justice for not admitting a blow job? Please wingnuts, you're making complete assess of youselves with this stupid argument.

The other problem, of course, with Kevin's question is that it makes a fundamental mistake of presumption:

That is, it presumes that the default state is that there is someone to prosecute, and that Fitzgerald had to actively decide not to prosecute someone. Instead, an investigation may start out with the indication of a likely crime, but it works to reach the point where a decision can be made that someone can be prosecuted, which, as far as the leak goes, was never reached.

So, aside from the fact that the decision that Kevin suggests was made never having been made, the decision that Kevin apparently really wants an answer about was pretty clearly never made either; what was made was, pretty clearly (and Fitzgerald has already explained this with his description of the status of the investigation) a decision that no further prosecution was possible without new evidence emerging that was not likely to be produced by further active investigation.

The jury foreman: "We convicted Libby because we really know Cheney was behind it."

Please provide a source for this direct quote or admit that it is a lie.

Fitzgerald actually said quite a bit on this in his 2005 press conference, as has been pointed out. He does not mention the IIPA, and seems to be saying that a crime was committed whether Plame was covert or not. Here is the most relevant segment:

QUESTION: Was the leaking of her identity in and of itself a crime?

FITZGERALD: OK. I think you have three questions there. I'm trying to remember them in order. I'll go backwards.

And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret. It's a statute you ought to carefully apply.

I think there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the transmission of classified information, because they think that would convert that statute into what is in England the Official Secrets Act.

Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

There may be an Official Secrets Act in England. There are some narrow statutes, and there is this one statute that has some flexibility in it.

So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act.

FITZGERALD: I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute.

That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge someone with a crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts.

Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight.

And our commitment on the other end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute.

FITZGERALD: And if we don't prosecute, we keep quiet.

And we're simply saying in here, we didn't get the straight story, and we had to -- had to take action.

Someone should make a list of all the major things the Post editorial writers have been wrong about. I read that paper every day for the columns, but I rarely look at the editorials. At their best they restate what everyone knows. At their worst they repeat right-wing talking points. You want inightful editorials, read the NYT.

Here’s a list just from my memory.

Supported the Vietnam war.

Was one of the last to realize it was lost.

Was very slow to come around on recognizing Nixon’s dirty tricks for what they were.

Accepted the nonsense about the 50,000 disappearing children that never disappeared.

Supported the Iraq war.

Thinks Libby was railroaded.

Prediction: They will be the last to realize Iraq is lost and an exit is required.

Hey, these people are practically one with the government. I mean, they have so many connections to whoever is in power through sources, parties, friendships, neighbors, kids in the same school, etc., there’s no way they can they make a major break. This is a small town! But fortunately, the collective consciousness of the paper, as evidenced by the Post editorials, keeps hands off the reporters. You have to give them credit for that.

Yancey Ward wrote: It is a fair conclusion that no indictments were made because Fitzgerald felt that there was no crime committed.

You know, Yancey, more and more I realize that I've been wrong in labeling you, even mockingly, as a "rugged individualist." You're a Republican tool, period, full stop.

Any fair -- which is to say, unbesmirched by bullshit Republican spin like you just tried to peddle on us -- reading of the public record, including Fitzgerald's own public statements, leads to the inevitable conclusion that Fitzgerald does believe a crime was committed in outing Plame, but that he can't prosecute it -- at least partly due to Libby's obstruction of justice.

Of course, it's apparent that Yancey needs to believe that the Republicans whose water he carries didn't commit a crime in outing a covert CIA agent. Cognitive dissonance isn't the only intellectual dishonesty afflicting loony libertarian / Republicans like Yancey, but it's sure a powerful one.

Let's get this ignorant comment out of the way:

Democrats didn't care about perjury when Clinton did it, and totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals. While there is a good-faith argument that Libby should go to prison for lying to the FBI or perjury, anybody who opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton cannot make the argument in good faith, unless they satisfactorily explain why it's okay when a Democrat does it.

There's an enormous difference between being evasive when answering a question in a civil case and lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of a Federal crime.

The charge against Clinton came about due to a (technically accurate though misleading) answer to a question about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky posed by the plaintiff's attorneys in the Paula Jones lawsuit. The question was not even germain to the plaintiff's case: if Clinton had responded to Paula Jones' attorney's question by giving every lurid detail about his liaisons with Monica Lewinsky--right down to the cigar and blue dress--it would not have done anything to strengthen Jones' claim of sexual harrassment since the relationship with Lewinsky was consentual--the question was posed purely to damage Clinton politically.

Libby, on the other hand, was found guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation of a violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act which made it a Federal crime to reveal the identity of an agent known to be involved in covert US Intelligence operations.

Getting back to Kevin's (recently clarified) question about Fitzgerald and possible indictments in the Plame affair. Fitzgerald's job was to determine whether or not the outing of Valerie Plame violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Libby was indicted and convicted because his statements and actions obstructed that investigation (that's why they call it "obstruction of justice" folks).

We now know that Valerie Plame was involved in covert operations which is why the CIA requested a Justice Dept investigation in the aftermath of Novak's column. Plame was outed as an act of revenge against Joe Wilson because Wilson's NY Time's column about the phony Niger yellowcake charge weakened the case for the war against Iraq the Bushites dearly wanted. The key point in the investigation dealt with whether or not Plame's covert status was known at the time her identity was leaked to Novak.

In his post-trial press conference, Fitzgerald stated that Libby's obstructions seriously damaged his investigations. Fitzgerald's statement about not filing further charges simply means that at this time, he does not have enough evidence to pursue any additional prosecutions.

Was Libby a big fish here or is this just another example of the Bush hatred syndrom taking down anyone they can lie about?

"Bush hatred"? Amazing that that pathetic dodge is still a refuge, even today. If you don't hate what he's done to this country, you never gave a fuck about this country. But as for Libby, that's not the point. He's the biggest White House figure to be convicted since Iran Contra. Another Republican adminsitration, another raft of criminals, another pile of bodies.

Not that we're surprised or anything.
.

and totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals.

Yes, I especially like travel-gate and whitewhater-gate. Truly the measure of Republican impotence.

But hey, whatever they can get their drooling, superstitious freak minions to scream about, eh?
.

The assumption that because Fitzgerald has been unable to bring an indictment for the crime of outing a NOC does not mean the crime never happened. As cmdicely and others have already pointed out in great detail an ethical/honest prosecutor does not bring charges/indictments unless they feel they have a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and without that threshold being met they do not identify anyone since to do so would be unethical and improper for a prosecutor. One of the biggest problems with Starr for example was the fact that he did the exact opposite of this, he was convinced Clinton was somehow a criminal that had not been caught and therefore went looking for anything that might stick to prove his belief that Clinton was dirty despite the lack of any actual hard evidence to support such a belief. That was one of the main reasons it was an obvious political prosecution.

Contrast that to how Fitzgerald has operated. He investigated a criminal referral, he was methodical and followed all the proper legal codes of conduct, he indicted only on that which he knew he could make a strong case for, and he has refused to identify any other possible suspects until he can similarly bring a strong case against them. Fitzgerald is literally the antithesis of Ken Starr. As much as I would love to know what Fitzgerald really knows and who he believes was actually responsible that he is unable to prove thanks in part to the lies, perjury and obstruction of justice committed by Libby, the fact that I do not for these reasons is a comfort because it is the behaviour of a true nonpartisan prosecutor who places following the LAW ahead of partisan politics, which also means it is far less likely this conviction will be overturned on appeal (outside of a blatantly political driven decision like we saw in Bush V Gore).

However, for all those that are trying to act like there was no wrongdoing in the WH, while you can argue that there was no criminal wrongdoing because of the lack of criminal charges (not a solid argument despite the claims of some to the contrary) we do know that every single person that discussed Plame as a CIA officer that did not first go to the CIA to confirm they were not outing a classified asset was in violation of the oaths to affirmatively protect classified data that every single one of these people have signed. The fact that anyone that has been proven to discuss Plame that still works in the WH shows a blatant level of contempt for classification, for protecting the national security secrets of the USA, and in general demonstrates that the political image of Bushco is more important than protecting the security of America. This is why Rove should not be working there anymore despite not being charged since we know he did not follow affirmative protection of classified information procedures to verify Plame was not classified, and while Bush may be able to declassify any document he wants I am not so sure he has the power to declassify an active NOC like he appears to have done with the NIE because of the active danger of death to those involved with said NOC. Even if he can and did though then that demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice serious American national security elements for the purposes of political damage control which in itself is arguably treasonous conduct.

So those trying to whitewash this conviction away and/or trying to claim Fitzgerald’s investigation is closed (inactive and closed are not the same thing, far from it and it is possible it is "inactive" at the moment to give further rope to potential suspects to hang themselves with just as Libby did with his perjury and obstruction from the outset) are deluding themselves and hoping to confuse the rest of us, not that they are succeeding around here. I do not believe this case is over, and as others have noted Congress now has been invited to pick up the investigation by Fitzgerald so the ball is as much in their court as it is in Fitzgerald's.

In any event, she was a NOC, this has been shown too many times too many ways to be in dispute expect for the true believers and Trolletariat. She was outed, and the investigation was obstructed by the Veep's Chief of Staff for which he has now been CONVICTED by a JURY of his peers, just as the rule of law requires, and Libby is no longer qualified to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, now he has been proven guilty to try and call him innocent is to claim the entire trial was a sham and should never have occurred, a very hard proposition to make given the nature of the charges and the clear evidence supporting them as demonstrated by the convictions. In any sane world/reality this would be something viewed as exceptionally serious and on a par with Watergate in terms of just how serious a problem this is not just for the WH but for the wider nation itself same as that case was. This is the most serious criminal behaviour I have seen from any WH in my lifetime which included Nixon, indeed is possibly the worst I know of in American history although I will not claim to be that well versed on the Presidential history prior to the 1900s. Anyone that can be an apologist for this at this late stage has shown they place their partisanship ahead of their loyalty to their nation IMHO. Classic IOKIYAR in action.

Fitzgerald's job was to determine whether or not the outing of Valerie Plame violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

I don't believe this is true. Do you have any evidence? In fact, I think this is a Republican talking point, because it's easy to show that the IIPA did not cover Plame in 2003.

Neither the DOJ letter appointing Fitzgerald, nor Fitzgerald himself in his long 2005 press conference (see exceprt above) made reference to the IIPA. If there was wrong-doing, it had to do with leaking "classified information" about the fact that someone worked at the CIA. Fitzgerald referred to Plame as a "CIA officer", not a "covert agent".

In Fitzgerald's words, from the 2005 press conference:

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified.

Fitzgerald actually said quite a bit on this in his 2005 press conference, as has been pointed out.

I'd like to know why he couldn't have a NEW press conference, in which he gets into issues that have now been presented in a new light (not least because of the revelations of the trial itself) since the 2005 press conference.

He found a way to talk about a lot of these issues at considerable length in 2005.

What's preventing him from doing so now, so as to quell the considerable confusion over where things now stand in the wake of the trial?

It's hardly adequate to let the trial speak for itself. There's going to be little public sentiment that true justice has been served until the larger context is somehow addressed.

And excerpt from the DOJ letter appointing Fitzgerald:

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,

Again, no reference to IIPA or "covert agent".

It seems that the CIA, the DOJ, and Fitzgerald all believed that there are CIA empoyees, other than covert agents covered by the IIPA, whose affiliation with the CIA is classified information.

I was under the impression that Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice precluded Fitzgerald from determining whether or not the IIPA was violated.

The law may have been violated, but because of Libby's lies and obstruction, he couldn't get to the heart of that investigation.

I'd like to know why he couldn't have a NEW press conference...

It's hardly adequate to let the trial speak for itself.

Agreeed. But I think we should read the 2005 transcript keeping in mind that he knew, then, all that we know now.

I think the key may be in this (excuse one more quote from that PC):

The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear...

You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness...

that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.

That is a difficult statute to interpret...

The average American may not appreciate that there's no law that's specifically just says, "If you give classified information to somebody else, it is a crime."

I think that these quotes explain why no one was indicted. And make it crystal-clear that the IIPA was never the issue.

Let me see if I have this straight. Fitz was appointed either by the Administration or confirmed by a Republican Congress. Right? Rove & Cheney did not say they were the ones who outed Plame until after Fitz said he would not be prosecuting the actual leak. The "Fall Guy", Scooter, has been convicted. And in spite of Rove & Cheney admitting they broke the law, (while stating they did not), Fitz says, "It is time for all of us to go back to our Day Jobs." So why should it take a rocket scientist to figure out what Fitzgerald's motives are?

BTW, Plame's employment with the CIA was labelled "Secret" until Cheney changed the classification. Since when does a VP have the right to do that? That decision is up to the DCI or the President, last I'd heard.

The events of a single day sum up the last throes of the Bush presidency:

- Walter Reed scandal
- Politically motivated prosector firings
- Libby conviction
- Bombings, U.S. troop deaths and an expanded "surge" in Iraq
- New, dismal polls for President Bush

y'know, the fun thing about reading through the comments here is the many science-fiction authors who voluntarily contribute. I'm a big fan of the alternate history sub-genre, and a browse through these comments really tides me over until the next Harry Turtledove novel comes out.

Democrats 'totally closed down the investigation into dozens of Clinton scandals. Love it. They should prosecute Joe Wilson for lying to a congressional committee. Brilliant. The Washington Post editorial page is liberal. Well, that last one may not be able to sustain a willing suspension of disbelief - it's too far out. I think I'd easier believe it's written by a Roswell space alien embittered and crazed by its long imprisonment. Now THAT'D make a good story!

Sebastian-PGP: ...comments from nepeta, cmdicely, etc. are on the mark. Fitzgerald never said that outing Plame wasn't a crime or that damage wasn't done.

Yeah, you are right and cmdicely has added more information since your post that answers much of Kevin's questions as well as Joe Buck and other noteworthy commentators such as Scotian (good to see you again).

There's also Judge Tatel's written decision itself about compelling Miller and Cooper to testify (with emphasis):

In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

Prosecutors don't pursue indictments for whatever the alleged crime may be when they think they cannot produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. Libby's obstructions made it too difficult for Fitz and the grand jury to indict for the crime of leaking as Tatel wrote, "the name of a covert agent," but not too hard to convict Libby on four felony counts: obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements.

Would it be nice for Fitz to clarify post-trial? Well, maybe it's too soon. He already explained a lot during the Libby indictment press conference.

Neither the DOJ letter appointing Fitzgerald, nor Fitzgerald himself in his long 2005 press conference (see exceprt above) made reference to the IIPA. If there was wrong-doing, it had to do with leaking "classified information" about the fact that someone worked at the CIA. Fitzgerald referred to Plame as a "CIA officer", not a "covert agent".

While Libby was not indicted for violation of the IIPA, both the IIPA (specifically, 50 USC 421) and the Espionage Act (specifically, 18 USC 793) are called out in the indictment against Libby as among the crimes that were the focus of the grand jury investigation Libby was charged with obstructing. It is certainly not the case that Fitzgerald's investigation was limited to the IIPA, but it is equally certainly that it included the IIPA.

IIPA is unenforceable- a prosecutor would have to prove that the US was taking active steps to protect the identity of the agent- graymail defense successful on that everytime. Maybe, Fitzgerald did not indict Cheney because there is no precedent that allows for the indictment of Veep for actions taken during the execution of his official duties. Fitzgerald has thrown the softball to Congress- it is all there... Congress, the gravy train riding, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, sociopaths just need to subpoena it.

You want a report- write your congressman.

IIPA is unenforceable- a prosecutor would have to prove that the US was taking active steps to protect the identity of the agent- graymail defense successful on that everytime.

The IIPA is probably not unenforceable against a "normal" defendant, though it is tricky; where the defendant has people high in the executive branch that don't want him convicted, gaming the availability of classified evidence becomes a big issue.

Maybe, Fitzgerald did not indict Cheney because there is no precedent that allows for the indictment of Veep for actions taken during the execution of his official duties.

Or, Fitz didn't indict Cheney or anyone else because its impossible with the evidence he has to prove that Cheney did not have and exercise declassification authority, which would make the leak not a crime (at least, of the type the courts can address.)

Fitzgerald has thrown the softball to Congress- it is all there... Congress, the gravy train riding, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, sociopaths just need to subpoena it.

Well, I probably wouldn't have phrased it quite that way, but I agree with the essence. The matter of culpability higher up the chain is the responsibility of the Congress.

Bob in fl: "Plame's employment with the CIA was labelled "Secret" until Cheney changed the classification. Since when does a VP have the right to do that?"

That point can't be stressed enough, Bob. The VP has no magic wand with which to do that. And even if he did, declassifying national-security information is not the same as handing it to the press for purely political purposes. If these trolls (and that includes WaPo apparently) could prove there's no federal crime, and they can't, it still would be an ethical violation worth resigning over.

Let's put it this way, if the CFO of a large company handed industrial secrets to another company in order to embarrass someone else in his own firm—and get that person fired or worse—wouldn't it be bad even if weren't technically a crime?

There is a crime here, however, and it's treason.

Yes, the IIPA is included in a list of six examples of possible violations of "federal laws" in the indictment. (And of course the indictment makes it clear that possible violations of all federal laws were included).

But I think it's fair to say that Fitzgerald's 2005 comments to the press gave clear indication that that the IIPA was not his focus.

That point can't be stressed enough, Bob. The VP has no magic wand with which to do that.

I thought it was established, and know that it has at least been alleged, that Cheney was delegated declassification authority by the President. This would be the "magic wand".

And even if he did, declassifying national-security information is not the same as handing it to the press for purely political purposes.

Well, no, but the former can make the latter not criminal (at least, not criminal under laws that prohibit the disclosure of classified information, since declassification takes it outside of the coverage of those laws.)

If these trolls (and that includes WaPo apparently) could prove there's no federal crime, and they can't, it still would be an ethical violation worth resigning over.

And abuse of the powers of office and of the public trust worth impeachment, conviction, and removal, as well, I would argue.

What they declassified in a hurry was the NIE. I don't believe that there has been a claim that Plame's employment at the CIA was declassified. Does anyone have a link for this?

In any case, Fitzgerald in 2005 made it clear that "In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."

Had there been a claim of declassification, he would know it by then.

Well, that's really where it rests. Who here hasn't been fired, or at least chastized, for far less?

Yes, it's time to let Fitzgerald go home -- and focus on what Congress needs to do now. Do they have what it takes to call Cheney to account or not?

I read that at some point Bush declassified the report on Plame's status. If this is true, then that alone would make prosecution of the leakers difficult, if not impossible. There's also the challenge of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the leakers intended to harm the US, proving that the leakers knew for certain that Plame was not just a CIA employee. but that she was working undercover. And there was also the strong probability that the Administration would use "classified info" "national security at risk" as excuses to withold documents and testimony; and that this position would be upheld by both Gonzales' Justice Dept and the Roberts Supreme Court.

On the whole, Fitzgerald did a good job. He got the one conviction; and if Rove hadn't been tipped off in time to change his Grand Jury testimony, that would have been conviction #2. Fitz succeeded in making public a great deal of the ugly story of the leak and the cover-up. We know now that the sources for Novak were Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. We learned about Cheney's role in the shameful matter, and we suspect that Bush was more involved than anyone is saying. We also learned quite a bit about the relationship between the White House and mainstream media reporters. Woodward, Russert, Miller, et al, whose professional stature has been diminished.

I think Patrick Fitzgerald really does owe us all an explanation of one thing: at what point during his investigation did he conclude that outing Valerie Plame's name was not an indictable criminal offense? Was it early in the investigation? Not til the end? And why did he come to that conclusion?

It might make for an interesting and informative read, but I do not think it is necessary. It is sufficient that Libby's obstruction of justice made a successful prosecution impossible.

There have been a lot of complaints on the right that this conviction was a travesty of justice, some from writers whom I respect, some from writers whom I don't respect. I disagree with them, however. The crime was potentially serious; the investigation was serious and competent; Libby's obstruction interfered materially with the investigation; the jurors were thorough; Libby was judged guilty on the merits of the case. Legal experts empanelled by Wall Street Journal (not exactly leftist or Democratic) were pretty skeptical that an appeal could be successful.

They use the phrase "good old country hardball" to describe intense partisan politics. Plame and Wilson may have been out to get the Administration, and some Administration counterplay may have been warrented. That said, Libby broke the law, got caught, indicted, tried, and convicted. He (and perhaps Cheney) was outplayed in good old country hardball.

Kevin can make amends with an extra cat blog.

Or two.

James of DC wrote: “Clinton was not splitting hairs. He did not 'have sex' with Monica and they actually kept their encounters to fellacio [sic] only so he wouldn't have to lie.�

James, you are correct that to American heterosexuals, 'have sex' means one thing only. However, there is no basis for suspecting that the reason for limiting the style of their encounters was to avoid having to lie. Their encounters were what they were because this is what the participants chose to do, no more and no less. Mr. Clinton knew it was wrong and found the moral strength to end it a full year before any of it began to come to light. This casts a great deal of doubt on your theory that lying-avoidance motivated the form of encounter.

It might make for an interesting and informative read, but I do not think it is necessary. It is sufficient that Libby's obstruction of justice made a successful prosecution impossible.

Shorter Matthew Marler: Thank goodness the Libby verdict leaves enough ambiguity to protect the cognitive dissonance of Bushlickers like myself.

Matthew Marler wrote: Plame and Wilson may have been out to get the Administration

See, Marler, it's like this: Some people have a bit of a problem when the Administration lies us into war.

Not you, of course, but normal people.

and some Administration counterplay may have been warrented

Nice apology for the Administration's acts, there, Marler. Remind me, Marler: What part of Wilson's revelations of the Bush Administration's mendacity, in your mind, justified this so-called "counterplay" (lovely euphemism for the outing of a covert CIA agent there, by the way!)?

Tool.

Gregory: justified this so-called "counterplay" (lovely euphemism for the outing of a covert CIA agent there, by the way!)?

I clearly said that the administration broke the law, that the Fitzgerald investigation was justified and well done, and the Libby verdict just. We do not need to know exactly why Fitzgerald declined to prosecute under IIPA, he said pretty clearly that Libby's obstruction made that nearly impossible.

I do not believe that Fitzgerald owes us an explanation, though a full account would surely be interesting and informative. Just as I wrote.

However, there is no basis for suspecting that the reason for limiting the style of their encounters was to avoid having to lie.

I guess you weren't cognizant at the time. It was widely reported that Monica told Tripp that that was *precisely* why WJC wanted the encounters limited to oral sex. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich was reported as doing the same thing with one of his mistresses.

Yes, it's time to let Fitzgerald go home

Please. We need him back here in Cook Co like you wouldn't believe.

Marler wrote: I clearly said that the administration broke the law blah blah blah

Yeah, and, as I pointed out, you also conflated understandable dismay with the Administration's lying about Iraq's so-called nuclear weapons program with being "out to get" the Administration (which, let's not forget, you were defending then and are defending even now with your bullshit).

In short, Marler, you couldn't fucking resist conveying bullshit GOP-friendly talking points even if circumstances forced you to cop to some of the more obvious mendacity and corruption of the Administration you support.

Not to mention, as I observed, your lovely euphemism for an Administration conspiracy to counter Wilson's revelations by fair means or foul.

Facts that, I note, you utterly fail to address in your response to my critique, nor do you answer why you suggest this "counterplay" may have been "warranted". Clearly, you lack the intellectual honesty to do so or admit you have no answer, however much you admit it tacitly with such a lame nonresponse.

You think acknowledging the obvious grants you any credibility, or gives you a free pass to slam the Wilson like your cretinous cohorts? Guess again, tool.

You do not know what Fitzgerald concluded regarding the existence of an underlying crime, whether there was one, or he could not find out, or there had been an indictable crime, but he did not have enough evidence. Witnesses were lying -remember. That is what the conviction was about.

So, Fitzgerald owes you, or us, nothing.
Stop with the silly posts on this topic. The WAPO and Note crowd are totally wrong on this -in every single way. Every word they write is a lie, includeing 'and' and 'the'. Are you just throwing them a bone to show some kind of BS balance? That you are fair. BS. Everything point made by that crowd about this case is BS.

Like, if I said "You know, (1+2)/0 = 4/0 and that is a very small number because zero is small", would you say "Well, gee you got a good point, it is possible to add 1 plus 2 and get a number."

Its not worth the trouble, it is incorrect and you give some some credibility to people who deserve absolutely none.

This whole thing is somewhat weird. For one, after huffing and puffing about super-secret status of Plame, Fitz decided that he did not want to prove in in court. In fact, he demanded that her status was irrelevant to the Libby case. Notice that showing evidence in court is somewhat tougher than claiming he can prove it at a press-conference. Particularily, when the defense can start shooting holes in his arguments, or even produce evidence that Wilson talked to a bunch of people about his wife working at the CIA. I suppose you all forgot that a few people already came forward making this claim. Which leads us to a second point - the defense tried to put Wilson on the stand, but he cried and whine, and begged not to be forced to talk under oath. Now, kids, you can all believe that a serious crime was committed when the Bush folks openly said that Plame was the one who get Wilson to go to Niger. Of course, such relevation was very harmful to poor old Wilson, who, together with the media, was proclaiming that Cheney sent him there.

Anyway, before I forget - a few people here have written that evil Libby obstructed the investigation, and this stopped Fitz from indicting everybody else. I am waiting for a single one of you actually provide a single evidence to prove this. In what particular way did Libby stop Fitz by claiming that Russert told him about Plame (it's still unclear to me why the jury trusted Russert, not Libby about this). Notice, that a day before this incident, Novak told Libby about Plame's status. In any case, lets presume that all 5 counts on Libby were correct. He was guilty on all counts. Now that you found this out - in what exact manner are you closer to indicting Cheyney or Rove? In fact, what extra evidence did Fitz get, which was not known before the trial? Name one thing. Tell me, even if Libby lied on all counts - how did it make Fitz' work any more difficult?

"Now, kids...the Bush folks openly said that Plame was the one who get Wilson to go to Niger. Of course, such relevation was very harmful to poor old Wilson, who, together with the media, was proclaiming that Cheney sent him there."

Do you "openly" believe all disproven lies or just the ones that are convenient for you?

'Sure, the liberal Washington Post is now part of the "right wing talking- point crowd" because they called the Libby prosecution what it was-"partisan." The Post went on to say that "handing a Washington political case to a special federal prosecutor is a prescription for excess." '

Um, it was the Republican Justice Department that referred the matter to a Republican US Attorney as special prosecutor. The Republican'ts were being partisan against Republican'ts? It simply boggles the mind!

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Order prescription drugs Buy prescription drugs without prescription