Media Matters Counterspin

Media Matters tries to rally up some spin in favor of the Libby conviction in order to counter "numerous myths and falsehoods" likely to be advanced by conservatives.  Well, our advance is unrelenting - here we go:

No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

Oh, well, if a prosecutor says it, it must be true!  The state of liberalism today - their faith in Fitzgerald's pronouncements is matched only by their touching faith that the CIA would not have filed a criminal referral unless there had really been a crime - the CIA would never lie or play political "gotcha" games with the White House.

Well - Richard Armitage and Ari Fleischer leaked Plame info after perusing documents marked "Top Secret".  They were not charged - maybe something other than Libby's obstruction spared them.  This brief by Victoria Toensing lays out a number of reasons to wonder whether a prosecution under the IIPA or the Espionage Act was even remotely feasible.

There was no concerted White House effort to smear Wilson. In his October 2005 press conference announcing Libby's indictment, Fitzgerald alleged that, in 2003, "multiple people in the White House" engaged in a "concerted action" to "discredit, punish, or seek revenge against" former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The "Smear" seemed to be the accurate information (as presented by Grenier and Harlow of the CIA) that his wife had played a role in getting Joe Wilson the Niger assignment.

There is no evidence that the Plame leak compromised national security. Some media figures critical of the CIA leak case have attempted to downplay its significance by claiming that no evidence exists that the public disclosure of Plame's identity compromised national security. In fact, news reports have indicated that the CIA believed the damage caused by the leak "was serious enough to warrant an investigation" and that the subsequent disclosure of Plame's CIA front company likely put other agents' work at risk. Further, Fitzgerald stated that Plame's identity had been protected by the CIA "not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."

Let's reprise some damage assessments - the link has more from Andrea Mitchell and Bob Woodward, but here is Dana Priest of CIA prison and Walter Reed fame:

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position.

Let's move on down the Media Matters list:

Fitzgerald exceeded his mandate in investigating violations beyond the IIPA. The administration's defenders also have accused Fitzgerald of exceeding his original mandate.

Well, there is not much question his mandate included the right to focus on perjury charges, especially since he specifically asked for that very early in his appointment.

The objection is that Fitzgerald did not undertake a serious investigation into the leak itself, almost certainly because he realized it was not criminal.  And if there was no underlying crime, just what was he investigating?  He made it clear in his press conference following the verdict - he was brought on in Dec 2003 because the DoJ did not like Libby's story.

Let's have one more from Media Matters:

Libby's leak was an effort to set the record straight. Critics of the CIA leak case have repeatedly claimed that the indictment stems from an effort by Libby and Vice President Dick Cheney to rebut a purportedly inaccurate attack on the administration by Wilson. According to these critics, Wilson falsely accused Cheney of having sent him to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country. In fact, Wilson, in his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, did not say he was sent by Cheney. Rather, Wilson wrote that it was "agency officials" from the CIA who "asked if I would travel to Niger" and "check out" a "particular intelligence report" that "Cheney's office had questions about," so that CIA officials "could provide a response to the vice president's office."

My goodness - did the story really begin with Wilson's July 6 op-ed? They why was Washington buzzing about an anonymous Ambassador in June? Evidently Media Matters' subscription to Google has lapsed, but let me help.

Nick Kristof, May 6, 2003,with an anonymous source later revealed to be Joe Wilson:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger.

Nick Kristof, June 13, 2003:

Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush's reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

And to illustrate that we have a media of slow learners. let's run some examples of our newsies grasp of the situation following the Wilson op-ed on July 6.  Here is Chris Matthews from July 9, 2003 (this provoked the fateful call from Libby to Russert):

MATTHEWS: Let me go back to David Gergen on the question of who may be culpable here, because we do have a paper trail, thanks to Joe Wilson, the ambassador. He said he was sent to Niger, the government in Africa that is in question here. There we have a picture of him. He was on "MEET THE PRESS". He also wrote a letter, an op-ed piece for the "New York Times" this weekend.    

He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year....

GERGEN: Chris, it was my understanding that he went to the -- to Africa at the request of the CIA, not the vice president's office. Vice president's office was...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: At the behest of the vice president's office, the CIA was tasked by the vice president's office to do it. Senator, isn't that right?

ROCKEFELLER: That is correct.

GERGEN: Well, I thought what he said in "The New York Times" was -- in his piece, was that he was asked by the intelligence agencies for whom he had worked, they paid his way. He went pro bono in terms of his...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: At the request of the vice president's office. Right, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: Absolutely correct.

That's a classic - don't vex Chris Matthews with what the Times published!  And here is Wolf Blitzer on July 13:

BLITZER:  Who sent [Joe Wilson]?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not a level that had anything to do with the White House, and I do not believe at a level that had anything to do with the leadership of the CIA.

BLITZER:  Supposedly, it came at the request of the vice president.

RICE: No, this is simply not true, and this is something that's been perpetuated that we simply have to straighten out.

Pernicious.  New information from the trial did resolve one puzzle - the CIA began turning the wheels of the Wilson trip on Feb 12, 2002 in response to inquiries from State and Defense; the Vice President chimed in with questions on the 13th.  It is a mighty stretch even to assert that the VP's questions provoked this trip, although they certainly may have given it added impetus.

 

 

Comments

[sylvia]

By the way, watching Anderson Cooper now on CNN interviewing Wilson. He seems at least somewhat refreshingly neutral.

[Foo Bar]

but here is Dana Priest of CIA prison and Walter Reed fame:

Again with the Dana Priest chat quote! That's a TM all-time fave. You might be interested in this from a more recent WaPo chat:

Pauling, N.Y.: Is it possible that Valerie Plame was covert but would not be covered by the IIPA? Why is it that no government official will comment about Ms. Wilson's employment and covered status?

Dana Priest: Because she was covert! No, she's covered. If she were not, you could not have had this trial in the first place.

Hmmm... maybe we have a highly granular view of Dana Priest's expertise in which her opinion on the damage caused by the Plame leak is highly valued but her opinion on whether she was covered under the IIPA is ill-informed. Or maybe the former is an instance in which the cold, hard facts compel her to go against her Bush-bashing instincts, while in the latter case she is behaving more typically.

[sylvia]

Mathews: "He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year...."

You know I used to like Mathews, but he has turned retarded ever since Bush came to power. He doesn't get the simplest things. For instance, for years now, he's constantly asking this question on air and still is, like it's the most important question in the world: "Why is Cheney denying he sent Wilson when Wilson was sent at his behest?"

Okay Chris, well it's like this. Say you ask your assistant to get the latest scoop on, say, Tony Blair. And she sends the MSNBC floor janitor to England to get it, because he happens to have an aunt who lives near Downing Street. You think you are going to accept the idea that you are the one who sent the janitor? Are you going to accept the report he came back with? Probably not. So... Cheney asked for a report. He didn't specifically ask for WILSON to be sent. It's not that hard of a concept really, Chris!

[sylvia]

"But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law."

This is what I still don't get. Wouldn't Fitz try to find out FIRST whether Plame was covert, and whether leaking her name even violated any statute, BEFORE he pursued an investigation on leaking? And wouldn't that be determined by information he got from the CIA? So how on earth could anything said or not said by Libby have anything to do with obstructing the information that Fitz would get from the CIA on Plame's classified status? And once Fitz determined that status was not covert, why was the investigation continued if there could be no possible crime stemming from it?

It's like a cop asking someone where they were last Friday to see if they robbed a bank, before you even find out if any bank had been robbed. And then of course you get the guy on obstruction when he says he can't remember what he did last Friday, because that hampers you in figuring out whether the bank was ever robbed.

[BarbaraS]

I really think it would be a good idea for the Bush administration to completely abolish the WH press corps. Let Tony Snow appear on Fox news every morning at the same time and let him tell the whole country the news from the WH. And let the reporters who want to know the WH news tune in to Fox. That ought to blow their heads off. See, a win-win.

[MayBee]

I love Dem Senator Rockefeller: That is correct.

[Gerry]

What a load of piffle Fitzi did a justice for American democracy. The fact is Libby lied pure and simple

[MayBee]

Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

Investigators also knew by November 14 2003 what Russert had to say about Libby's story. A good way to get past the obstruction would have been to say something like, "OK Libby, cut the crap. We know Russert didn't tell you. Now what do you have to say?"

Letting Libby repeat the same story seems a bit counterproductive.

If they were really trying to move the investigation forward to discover the larger crime, that is.

[JM Hanes]

Gerry:

Wow, I knew "Fitzi" did Judge Tatel, but you're the first to claim he did a justice too.

[MayBee]

HA!

[Seixon]

Not to mention the things that Wilson's friends in VIPS were writing, and having written, in media publications all over the place during this time period.

Afterwards they, like Media Matters, would claim it was a lie concocted by Republicans that anyone ever suggested that Cheney sent Wilson... But it's right there on the record from Wilson, Rockefeller, Matthews, and most of the things written on behalf of VIPS before Wilson's op-ed.

The Left seems to pretend that Wilson's op-ed was the start of it all, precisely because Wilson lied his ass off previous to that, a fact they do not want to face. The truth of the matter is that Wilson's op-ed was an exercise in CYA. After having lied and had numerous journalists tell false tales, then he went public and "corrected" some of the false notions, which the Left cling to feverishly to this day.

I cannot even believe the chutzpah of Wilson now after the trial, the things he is saying. What a disgrace of a man.

[Patton]

ARMITAGE PROVES PLAME WAS NOT COVERT.

We know Armitage did not tell Fitz about Woodward, so therefore Woodward could not have been part of any Armitage deal.

We have on tape Armitage outing Plame to Woodward. This would be an air tight solid case.

We know Fitz has a legal responsibility to prosecute actually crimes and we know how strongly he feels about agent outing.

THE FACT HE HAS NOT PROSECUTED ARMITAGE IS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PLAME WAS NOT COVERT. You can't have it both ways, you can't claim Plame was covert and not prosecute Armitage.

In addition, Armitage not telling Fitz further shows Armitages guilt and attempt to obstruct the investigation.

It appears the only reason Armitage hasn't been prosecuted is because he opposed the liberation of Iraq.

[Daddy]

For the first time in years I watched larry King Live tonight to get the scoop. The panel of experts included:

Juror Collin's, the ex-Post reporter (he's already working on his book about it)

Joe Wilson

Susan McDougal

Matt Cooper

David Gergen

Words fail me.

[Jane]

Good Morning, coffee is brewing, let's get to work!

[hit and run]

Good morning Jane!

Good morning all...

[Jeff]

Daddy

You must have missed Scott McClellan stick the knife in the OVP (presumably because they lied to him and made him look like a lying fool in front of the press and the American people over a quite long period of time) on Larry King Live. He also said those in the White House should explain themselves, though he did go on to defend the White House for just trying to set the record straight back in 2003. But the stab at the OVP was really quite memorable.

Susan McDougal, not so much.

[MayBee]

(presumably because they lied to him and made him look like a lying fool in front of the press and the American people over a quite long period of time)

While I think Scott McClellan is probably a very nice man, I think his insuitability for the job made him look like a fool over quite a long period of time.
As far as the Wilson situation goes, I agree that he most likely is quite bitter.

[Jeff]

While I think Scott McClellan is probably a very nice man, I think his insuitability for the job made him look like a fool over quite a long period of time.

Yes, there were multiple causes; I didn't mean to suggest Libby and Cheney and Rove lying to him were the only causes.

So we're in agreement.

[Pofarmer]

This is what I still don't get. Wouldn't Fitz try to find out FIRST whether Plame was covert, and whether leaking her name even violated any statute, BEFORE he pursued an investigation on leaking?

The leak investigation was over. Fitz was never a leak investigation.

[boris]

Well Jeff since the Miller charges were dropped there is nothing in the result of the trial that indicates Libby or Cheney or Rove lied to Scott.

"Heard that too" is not confirmation nor is it leaking.

Novak's source was Armitage and confirmation was Harlow.

[Jeff]

Novak's source was Armitage and confirmation was Harlow.

Wow, you're really around the ideological bend.

Novak's column said:

Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

Those two senior administration officials were Armitage and Rove. Rove was Novak's confirming source for his column. Rove was the second of Novak's two "senior administration officials" referred to here. You just can't get around it. You can deny it all you want. But it just makes you look delusional.

[Seixon]

Patton,

Unfortunately, that wouldn't prove that Plame wasn't covert. The IIPA states that the person to be prosecuted for the crime must knowingly have outed a covert agent. Fitzgerald has found no evidence that anyone that spoke about Plame knew anything about a supposed covert, or even classified, status.

I doubt Plame was covert on other grounds, but right here you're barking up the wrong tree.

Jeff,

Yes, Rove leaked to Novak about Plame. Here's a troubling fact though: Novak called Rove, not the other way around. Usually when you're going to out someone, you do the calling. Rove, just like everyone else at State and the OVP, were chatting about Wilson and his wife, and many of them related this to the press.

Put Nicholas Kristof on the stand, and we'll soon find that Plame outed herself to him before all of this even started. Oh, and unlike people at State and in the OVP, she knew her status was classified.

This is the most ridiculous investigation/trial since Lewinskygate.

[boris]

Rove was Novak's confirming source

What Novak considers confirmation is not correct. Doubt you'd consider him the final word on any other topic. "Heard that too" is not a confirming statement.

Rove didn't consider it confirmation nor source and his claim is on firmer ground than yours (or Novak's). He didn't lie to anybody about it.

[clarice]

Fred Thompson has a good piece in NRO:
Sherman's March Thru the Law

David Brock of Media Matters and the VIPS have a lot in common, including Soros money.

[BumperStickerist]

-

fwiw, at the time the Plame Case was first getting started, back when Tom had more available gray cells, the CIA mentioned that it files, on average, 50 referrals similar to the one they sent out for Valerie per year.

I've yet to read of 100+ successful prosecutions of other-than-Libby based on CIA referrals.

-

[Sue]

But the stab at the OVP was really quite memorable.

Not so memorable, it would seem. The OVP includes Rove?

[Sue]

I've yet to read of 100+ successful prosecutions of other-than-Libby based on CIA referrals.

And you won't because I read recently where they have only successfully prosecuted one case referred and Clinton pardoned him.

Most aren't even investigated.

[BumperStickerist]

I think the statistic gives lie to the Lefty argument that the mere fact that the CIA issued a referral means something.

-

Also, I've noticed a decided lack of the term 'ilk' in Tom's and the commenters rebuttals to

There's a dearth of 'Tim Russert and his ilk' sorts of statements. It's like Tom and his ilk are being all classy and refined and staying on point.

-

[Pete]

Fred Thompson should stick to what he does best - act on a fictitious script. He says now - "DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law". The DOJ certainly did not know that. At that time the FBI suspected Libby and Rove of lying and covering up.

Fitzgerald had a lot at stake on this trial. He won. Thompson backed up and is backing up the wrong guy - a convicted felon.

[Jeff]

Here's a troubling fact though: Novak called Rove, not the other way around. Usually when you're going to out someone, you do the calling.

Incorrect! As abc's The Note said - in a passage that was entered into evidence at trial because Jenny Mayfield, Libby's assistant emailed it to Cathie Martin at Libby's behest -

And we really don't like to fight with Bob Novak – besides being a fellow journalist and Terps fan, he is our hero.

But we don't understand why

1. Bob thinks it matters that he was told the name of Wilson's wife in a conversation he initiated, as he claimed yesterday. It is a classic political hit strategy, Bob, to take the call from the reporter, and work the negative information into the call.

Though I do not like The Note, I trust them to get the facts more accurately on journalistic practices than you, although if you'd like to provide the empirical back-up for your purported "troubling fact," I'd be glad to listen.

What's more, it recently came out that Rove was given a heads-up that Novak was going to be calling him by Richard Holht after Novak told Hohlt he was working on a story on Joe Wilson.

(By the way, that last point seems to give the lie to the notion that Rove was unprepared for Novak's questions about Wilson after asking him about a different matter in their phone call.)

[sylvia]

There has to be some amending of the law or legal thinking that all reasonable steps are taken to ascertain a crime has even occurred before an obstruction charge is brought. Also some change for the prosecution to show how the supposed false statement in any way might have hampered an investigation that could in any way result in a crime.

At least for Martha, the prosecution could at least try to claim that since she was probably not being honest in the conversations between her and her stockbroker, they could claim that she might have obstructed justice because they would never be able to prove the truth of her stock short-selling. But with Libby, even if he was lying his pants off, how does that change anything if Valerie Plame was not covert and no possible leaking charge could result?

I guess we need to know now once and for all, like I've seen in another post. Is Valerie Plame covert? And what did Fitz know and when did he know it?

[Sue]

(By the way, that last point seems to give the lie to the notion that Rove was unprepared for Novak's questions about Wilson after asking him about a different matter in their phone call.)

Are you working on the Rove trial? The one that isn't going to happen? Or is this just a post-Libby what could have been moment?

[Cecil Turner]

Those two senior administration officials were Armitage and Rove. Rove was Novak's confirming source for his column.

Looks to me like we need one of those "may not be considered as proof of the truth of the matters asserted" caveats (which the lefties will undoubtedly ignore anyway, but at least it's on the record). But in this case, there's no dispute on the verbiage used. If you think "I heard that too" is confirmation, fine. Don't know how supportable that is (not very, IMO), but Novak's opinion that it was doesn't really add.

[Pofarmer]

Novak wanted to run the story. He was gonna go with whatever he could get. Same with Cooper. Lax standards.

[Pete]

I was about to mention the Dana Priest chat but Foo Bar beat me to it.

Incidentally this has already been mentioned here a couple of time before here and here

Incidentally the TM quote from Priest is dated Nov 3 2005 and also includes the qualifier - "from what I've been able to learn about her position".

[Jeff]

Are you working on the Rove trial? The one that isn't going to happen? Or is this just a post-Libby what could have been moment?

Boy, Sue, those grapes must have been sour to produce such an uncharacteristically sour look on your words.

As for me, I think over time I've been thoroughly consistent in being more interested in figuring out what happened than in the specific issue, as interesting as it is, of course, of who was going to be charged with what and with what legal outcome.

Like I've said before, knowing what we know about Rove's conduct, it's instructive to learn that restoring honor and dignity to the White House meant "Not indicted!" perhaps with an added "Nya! Nya!"

[Cecil Turner]

Like I've said before, knowing what we know about Rove's conduct, it's instructive to learn that restoring honor and dignity to the White House meant "Not indicted!" perhaps with an added "Nya! Nya!"

Yeah, "I heard that, too" is pretty damning stuff. Far worse than, say, Armitage exulting in glee: "It's perfect! This is what she does, she's a WMD analyst out there." And he must've set Novak up (using Armitage? mind rays?), because . . . ? Seriously, Jeff, this is borderline delusional.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

THe media is back trumping LIES. It's taking Fitz' LYING reBUTTal, and focussing Libby's guilt on "Cheney's attempts at discrediting Wilson, by hurting his wife." Oh, yeah. And, Wilson is now suing Cheney in civil court.

Imagine this: ONE BRANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTION, the judicial one, is now a toy in the hands of the democraps. And, they don't care where they shit.

By the way, Wells was never allowed to DEFEND AGAINST the spurious charge! Even Cheney's article, delivered STILLBORN into the jury room, was treated as the TRUTH. It never contained TRUTH. It contained PUZZLEMENT.

And, then, when Libby spoke to Russert, demanding to know why Chrissy Matthews let Wilson swing with so many lies on Hardball; did the answer emerge.

Wearing the NBC "HAT," Russert treated the White House call as if it was scum. And, refused to do much about it.

THen? Well, later in the story, Dreck-N-Rode, (who also disappears at trial), got thru to Russert and Russert not even thinking he'd have to protect a source, worked with the FBI at CREATING THE LIE THAT FLIES. All the paperwork is lost.

And, the jurors? Well, coming off of Martha Stewart's defeat, I am not surprised.

But the media has saddled up its old horse; and is galloping, now, after Cheney.

As if Wilson actually has a case! (Ah. Unless, of course, Wilson has friends that will lead this case to the appropriate judge.)

You know the one. Like harry reid's vegas. Where you are entering a whore house with a roulette wheel. And, the frenchman is "surprised you're gambling," folks.

Bush, light in his loafers, can't seem to understand that the gifts he needed were in McCain's mouth. But in 1988, when his dad, also a failed president, reached for the gold, he pushed McCain away. Ditto for 2000.

So now you're still in the gambling casino. How many chips have ya got left?

And, why do you think Wilson cannot re-emerge, blasting his trumpet, made in the USSR? You think people will ever trust attorneys, again? At $700 an hour?

Martha Stewart was right. Take your wallets off the table and let them all starve.

[RichatUF]

foobar says...

...Again with the Dana Priest chat quote! That's a TM all-time fave. You might be interested in this from a more recent WaPo chat...

Dana Priest

Pham Xuan An, trust your sources

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

Jeff says...

I think over time I've been thoroughly consistent in being more interested in figuring out what happened

FOIA-Justice

FOIA-State

FOIA-CIA

5 USC 552

2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying--
...

(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and

more

... (B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action.

Its a start

RichatUF

[Spartacvs]

No underlying crime was committed.

I think it's pretty clear to any non partisan looking at this that indeed a crime was committed. Attacking a guy who wrote a critical op-ed by bringing his wife into it is not the sort of sleazeball tactic the average man on the street would expect senior members of their government to get involved in. When the wife is a CIA employee workin on sensitive national security issues and possibly a covert operative who is forced out of the CIA by the revelations that just makes the whole situation seem a lot worse to the average man on the street with no partisan axe to grind.

Fitzgerald determined he didn't have the evidence to bring a prosecution under the identities protection act. Perhaps in part, and I acknowledge speculation here, because the perpetraitors refuse to break their oath of omerta. That is quite different from the assertion that there was no underlying crime.

[royf]

Well Spartacvs I've put my tin foil hat on so I can get in touch with your freqency perhaps you can ridule me this.

If the underlying crime was leaking the CIA agent, why didn't Fitz set the perjury trap for Richard Armitage? Hell he never even called Armitage to testify, Why wouldn't he go after the leaker on process violations if that's all he had and he was after the leaker?

[Tom Maguire]

Again with the Dana Priest chat quote! That's a TM all-time fave.

Jim E did a great job finding that...

Re her "She's covert!" - that was clearly a joking response to "Why will no one talk about her."

As to her opinion that Plame is covered and the trial would not be possible otherwise, yes, I take a granular view of her expertise, especially since the trial very clearly *did* go forward without a ruling on whether she is covert as per the IIPA.

[sylvia]

"since the trial very clearly *did* go forward without a ruling on whether she is covert as per the IIPA."

Yes, that's the problem. Why is there no ruling? Where is the proof of any underlying crime? Where is the proof that Libby's "lies" effected anything? Is this appealable? (And what's the IIPA? Too many abbreviations in this modern world..)

[sylvia]

You know I think I should have used "affected" above instead of "effected". I can never get this straight so I looked this up in Dictionary.com recently, and "effected" means more like a result, and "affected" means more like "changed". Even still, I use "effected" more anyway, because "affected" sounds a little too sissy for everyday writing.

[sylvia]

Yes, effected = "result", affected = "influence". Can't look that up too much. If you ask me, they are still pretty much the same. No result without an influence, right? And while we're at it, let's change the spelling of "indictment" to "inditement"! Enough already.

[Spartacvs]

royf :

Did Fitz set a perjury trap or did Libby create one out of whole cloth?

We report you decide.

[azaghal]

No underlying crime was committed. Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

How's this for a thought experiment? Since Fitz claims Libby's "story" (that he heard about Plame from reporters) obstructed the investigation from determining whether a violation of law existed, why don't we, as a test, assume the exact opposite set of facts and attempt to determine whether, in that case, a crime had occurred. In other words, let us assume that rather than hearing about Plame from reporters, Libby told the reporters about Plame--even at the direction of the Vice President. In fact, that thought experiment (which we can assume Eliot Ness with a Harvard degree was capable of performing, as well) changes nothing, as can be seen from the fact that Fitz is not pursuing any other charges and considers the investigation to be "inactive."

So, let's see what that means. The trial proves that Libby lied, that in fact it was Libby who told reporters about Plame, not vice versa. If I understand these matters correctly, Fitz can't charge Libby with an IIPA or other violation at this point due to the Double Jeopardy clause (but anyone can enlighten me on any subtleties of the law, here). But if he had really believed in his case he could quite logically have included such a count in his original indictment. That would have made a nice neat package: jurors, if you believe Libby lied, then it follows that he told reporters about Plame and violated the IIPA--so you can convict him for that, too.

Oh, but there was a hangup that Fitz appears to have been eager to avoid. In order to do that he would have had to introduce evidence regarding the elements of any substantive crime that he charged Libby with. How inconvenient! Rather than giving press conferences in which he merely alleged--insinuated might be better--that Plame was "covert" for purposes of the IIPA, he would have actually had to introduce some evidence of such a violation. Rather than merely insinuating to the public and the jury that Libby had committed the heinous crime of "discrediting," Fitz would have actually had to introduce evidence, #1, that there is such a crime as "discrediting," and #2 that anything Libby said regarding either of the Wilsons was false. No wonder our Eliot Ness with a Harvard degree decided that discretion would be the better part of valor, and trumped process violation instead. All the insinuations were intended to #1 cover his ass with regard to the entire abusive investigative process, and #2 enflame (heh, heh) the prejudices of the jury. So noble.

With the help of the compliant Waltoon and a ringer on the jury Fitz got his man. That is nothing to be proud of. Rather, it is something that all Americans should feel deep shame for.

[azaghal]

Rather than giving press conferences in which he merely alleged--insinuated might be better--that Plame was "covert" for purposes of the IIPA, he would have actually had to introduce some evidence of such a status, as defined by a real statute.

and trumped up a process violation instead.

[royf]

Spartacvs

You insinuated that because the underlying crime couldn't be prosecuted that Fitz had to go after process crimes. You also insinuated that an attack was started in the White House to bring Plame out. And that explained why Libby was tried on process

Yet it is proven during the trial that the leak came from the State Dept specifically Richard Armitage. If Fitz were after the leaker why then didn't he give Armitage the 8 hr grilling he gave Libby?

And yes I believe Fitz set a perjury trap but my question is valid even if you don't.