A Plame Day

Joe Wilson is in the news with his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  The announcement and left blogger reaction are actually kind of funny - this is Taylor Marsh:

A conference call announcing the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Joseph Wilson was just   held with bloggers to hear the breaking news. This is a huge deal for Candidate   Clinton and a big endorsement for her candidacy. That it was broken on the blogs   sends a powerful signal. I'll provide the transcript as soon as it is available.

...The '08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. That Clinton offered the scoop to a group of bloggers shows just how far she's come and how far she's willing to engage a community, which on the whole is very critical of her on all fronts.

Well, yes, but... the decision to give the scoop to left bloggers is a nice double play - frankly, only lefty bloggers would care; the major media would either yawn or reprise Wilson's troubled relationship with the truth and with the Kerry campaign in 2004.  Wilson was sort of laughed off the stage  in the summer of 2004, following the SSCI report.

And Wilson alluded to that in his endorsement of Hilary, saying that "one thing that bonds the two is their mutual experience with the "meat grinder" -- a.k.a., the right wing slime machine."

Well, just in an off sort of curiousity sort of fashion, why did Joe Wilson talk about his media coverage as "the meat grinder"?  Is he a Secret Stooge of Dick Cheney?

And speaking of speaking of truth to power, maybe this time around it will be Valerie that takes a bit of a thumping - Robert Novak marks an anniversary of his own by writing this in his July 14 2007 column:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Davis, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is puzzled by the House Intelligence Committee's claim that Valerie Plame Wilson has been consistent in her sworn testimony. He is asking the Intelligence Committee for documents to back up their contention.

Davis last month noted that Mrs. Wilson had testified to his committee that she, as a CIA employee, had not suggested the fact-finding mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. She earlier had told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that she did not recall whether she made such a proposal. Davis also cited an internal CIA e-mail by her saying Wilson "may be in a position to assist."

By way of Sen. Bond (Kit Bond) and Byron York we have the email in question.

Now, I don't for a moment think Ms. Wilson is in any real jeopardy here - I take for granted that the Dems will protect her and the semi-cover-up will hold.  However, Reps will exact their price in other ways.

Cecil Turner has a piece at The American Thinker thumping Judge Walton.  I am wondering whether he let Armitage off easy with this:

At the time, Mr Fitzgerald was still contending Mr Libby was the first government leaker, and "at the beginning of the chain of phone calls" . . . even though he knew Armitage found out about Ms. Wilson two days before Libby got it from the Vice President.

Presumably this refers to the June 10 INR memo and the June 12 note of Cheney and Libby.

But do we really have any good evidence as to what Armitage told Fitzgerald? There was a repeat INR memo with a new cover sheet dated July 7; mightn't Armitage have vaguely remembered that as his first encounter with the Plame info when he first came forward in 2003?  Maybe it was only in Nov 2005, following the Libby indictment, that Armitage "remembered" the June 10 memo when he remembered his June 13 chat with Bob Woodward.

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miler and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time.  Useful details about Armitage might be there.  However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12.  The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.

Developing...

 

Comments

[clarice]

Maybe the reporter was Calabresi who heard it from Wilson.

[clarice]

The Sept 27 affidavit TM--graph 48:
48. The investigation of Armitage's conduct is near complete and, indeed, Armitage testified for the second (and final) time before the grand jury on September 22, 2004. Armitage testified that he did not recall discussing Wilson's employment with any reporter other than Novak prior to July 14, 2003, and specifically denied any recollection of discussing the matter with Cooper or any of his Time colleagues.

Crackpot prosecution

[Topsecretk9]

Jeff Goldstein has a post up

Heroic spy f****r Joe Wilson, fresh off his latest triumph in front of the House Judiciary Committee, is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

Which creates a bit of a problem, given that the netroots have spent a lot of energy building up Wilson’s credibility, while working to remind us — daily — that Hillary Clinton’s (pre-election cycle) support for the war in Iraq (which was nothing more, really, than a continuation of the regime change policy once widely supported by Democrats) disqualifies her as a viable “netroot” candidate....

[clarice]

Didn't he say he was moving to NM to help Richardson?

[Topsecretk9]

Elliot noticed a little bombshell in one of the affidavit's

On the other thread, I quoted the August 27, 2004 affadavit: "Fleischer has declined to sign a waiver despite being granted immunity" (paragraph 80).

[hit and run]

TM:
the major media would either yawn or reprise Wilson's troubled relationship with the truth and with the Kerry campaign in 2004. Wilson was sort of laughed off the stage in the summer of 2004, following the SSCI report.

Well, and one would expect this to muzzle him on the whining about Libby's sentence being commuted, lest the media reprise the uncomfortable questions of Bill's use of presidential leniancy.

No more Speaking Truth to Power for you!

[Ranger]

"Fleischer has declined to sign a waiver despite being granted immunity" (paragraph 80).

Hmmm... Perhapse that explains why Judy wouldn't testify for so long?

She did strongly imply she had at least one other government source who had not signed a waiver.

[windansea]

“Sabotage: America’s Enemies Within the CIA”

Examiner reporter Rowan Scarborough has a new book out exposing the CIA bureaucrats who are undermining the war on terror. The Examiner newspapers are running a five-part series of book excerpts. The book publicist sends some details of the book’s never before reported accounts, including how:

· A CIA leak made the justice department open an official investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, plunging the Bush White House into its worst political crises.

· The CIA bureaucracy was so hostile to Director Porter Goss that his staff sometimes whispered in his 7th floor office as if it were bugged.

· The Iraq Station was still not the top CIA priority three years into the war. It lacked basic data bases and was staffed by scores of inexperienced officers.

· The CIA closed scores of stations and bases worldwide during the Clinton years, including the base in Hamburg Germany where radicals started planning the September 11 attacks.

· The New York Times snookered the chiefs of Congress’ two intelligence committees to tell the Times facts about the terror surveillance program.

· The National Security Agency studded the mountains of Afghanistan with a new type of high-tech listening devices and pointed them at Pakistan where they revealed terror training camps masquerading as schools.

· The CIA penetrated Internet cafes in Iraq to help it track al Qaeda terrorists. New details on the hunt for Abu Musab Zarqawi.

· A retired officer privately told Donald Rumsfeld in September 2006 that the Iraq war was nearly lost, prompting a complete change in strategy.

· An adviser to Karl Rove calls Richard Armitage a coward for not Coming forward in 2003 and telling the public he was the source of the Valerie Plame leak. It could have ended the scandal right then and there.

[Ranger]

Another interesting point. Fitz has repeatedly asserted the Armitage completely co-operated with the investigation. That always seemed odd to me given Armitage's forgetfulness regarding the Woodward conversation. But, what if Armitage's forgetfulness was part of the co-operation?

Did the notes from Armitage's first FBI interview get lost as well?

If Armitage had remembered his Woodward conversation it would have sunk the entire Fitz investigation of the White House. So maybe Armitage was somehow informed that a little forgetfulness wouldn't be a bad thing, at least until a couple of WH people had been charged.

[Topsecretk9]

TM might find this Novak interview interesting too

[BobS]

W and S: Thanks for posting those. Along the same lines, I've had some questions about current CIA chief Hayden. Two things, with one new one being brought up in Scarboroughs book. First, the take down of Maloof by Hayden when he was at NSA when he was accused of leaking and Maloof lost his clearance, ruining his career. Second,and more subtle, was Hayden giving Harry Waxman the statement that Plame was "classified". Talk about a juicy snack for the bully.

[NARCISO]

Well, when they find out that Wilson, is working for AIG with Hassan AlAmoudi on the Sudan deal. Seriously what's the use. We know of his Saudi & emirati ties through the Middle East Institute, Rock Creek Partners et al, and the media doesn't focus on that.Not to mention the family ties to
foreign enterprises like Nigerien COGEMA.

It is instructive though on the Baghdad's station's first chief John Maguire, who rattled off Aardwolf cables to the McClatchy
& NY Times offices; which gave no indication of what we were to look for in the insurgencies. In fact, one could argue
he was a driving force behind the intelligence sweep that culminated in Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003. While whining about Baathist's deposed in the 'itijihad'; he collects fees as a consultant to the same service he tried to undermine. I'm going by the account in Corn & Isikoff.
As to other figures in that office, going by the Geheim 2004 'Naming Names' we know little. According to Harper's Ken Silverstein, a prospective station chief was ruled out, after said author relayed enough information to 'out' him the in the
right circles. That's all it takes now,
from the successors to Agee & Hosenball;(yes that Newsweek reporter who revealed
agency personnel in Britain in 1975) Foggo
& the NCS chief were revealed by Jason Vest,
with nary a complaint; from the Plameniacs.

[cathyf]

So maybe Armitage was somehow informed that a little forgetfulness wouldn't be a bad thing, at least until a couple of WH people had been charged.

Um, except wouldn't that be like, ya know, a crime?!?! Like when the Godfather's consigliere shows up at your store and threatens to burn it down if you don't conveniently "forget" that you noticed Guido lurking in the alley the night of the mob hit...

[Carol Herman]

Drudge is headlining Elizabeth Edwards remark that Hillary is a man. Or she acts like one.

While if you take a really close look, you'll see all of this "Hillary mania" is lost on the public.

I'm sure the campaign, ahead, will be far filthier than any in our history. While, at the same time, Pelosi's rag will remain pristine clean.

Dubya's in his own world, too.

It's probably what has the Bonkeys confused, enough. Because NOW everyone has BDS, and it doesn't "halp" the Bonkeys one iota.

I just hope Guiliani's health holds up.

[cathyf]

These two recently released less-redacted affidavits from Fitzgerald (Aug 2004; Sept 2004) were filed in pursuit of the Miler and Cooper subpoenas and describe the case as of that time. Useful details about Armitage might be there. However...

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony

Did Libby's lawyers have access to these documents before/during the trial? Or are these newly released?

[clarice]

Recently released--after the trial--at least the least redacted version.

[EH]

So, anybody gonna comment on Romney's $300 makeup job?

[clarice]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest Armitage was encouraged to be forgetful by the prosecution. It's enough to note that the prosecution made no real effort to confirm his story by for example subpoenaing his visitors log. Just as the prosecution obviously cared so little about confirming Fleischer's story that his refusal to sign a waiver was of no moment to Fitz. He then had a perfect out for not checking out the story--had he, it is clear Fleischer would have been proven to be a false witness or Russert would.

See how easy this is. How you can get anyone at all convicted of a crime when you use the tricks of the prosecution.

[Sara]

OT - Via General Peter Pace:

“In his most optimistic remarks since the U.S. troop buildup began, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that Iraq has undergone a “sea change” in security in recent months, and that this will influence his recommendation to President Bush on how long to continue the current strategy.

After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to security Baghdad and Anbar province. “It will because what I’m hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here,” he replied. “It’s no longer a matter of pushing al-Qaida out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems.”

Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the U.S. military is continuing various options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his “surge” strategy needs a further boost.”

[Sara]

Via MacRanger:

Don’t look now, but Bush’s poll numbers are rising.

“President Bush’s firm position on Iraq has firmed up his Job Approval numbers. For the fourth straight day, 39% of Americans say they approve of the way the President his performing his job. That’s up three percentage points from the ratings before the President’s press conference last Thursday and four points above the June average. The bounce can be traced to the response of Republicans who are more supportive of the President now that the debate over immigration has been left behind.”

[cathyf]

I know that these are newly-released to us -- the question I have is whether Libby's lawyers had them before/during the trial? Because it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't have hammered Cooper and Fleischer on the stand. If they did have access to this, and failed to make a big deal of it, then, yes, color me slack-jawed, too.

[Ranger]

Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

[PeterUK]

Some years back I had an acquaintance who wish to emigrate with his family on leaving the Royal Navy.He was an engineer,but was stonewalled until he let drop he worked on nuclear submarines,at which point there was a fanfare and out rolled the red carpet.
Now superspy Valerie Plame,sole defender of her nation,repository of a thousand and one WMD secrets,has been scratching around trying to eke a living,when innumerable organisations,security companies,let alone intelligence agencies should have snapped her up with her CV,is it to much to ask why?

[Ranger]

And on the OT issue, I have a feeling that the Senate Democrats are going to regret blocking Gen. Pace's renomination. It looks like he is going to hammer them in the press (at least indirectly) from now until he leaves his post. Did they really think a 4 star general wasn't a savy enough politician to make them pay for their actions?

[Sara]

Sorry for all these OTs, but I wonder if anyone else is following this?:

Senate Subpanel Hears Case of Convicted Border Agents

[Ralph L]

"My name is Bond...Kit Bond"

Sorry, it just ain't cool, even in a Connery accent.

[Ralph L]

Ranger, I can't believe Gates was stupid enough to show that much weakness in the face of the enemy (Senate Dems). Hasn't he learned appeasement doesn't work?

On the other hand, why wasn't Pace able to get the war strategy changed earlier? Bush or Rumsfeld didn't want to fire Abizaid or Casey? It sounds to me they were making the same mistakes Westmoreland did: clear out an area, and then leave.

[clarice]

Cathy:"I know that these are newly-released to us -- the question I have is whether Libby's lawyers had them before/during the trial? Because it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't have hammered Cooper and Fleischer on the stand. If they did have access to this, and failed to make a big deal of it, then, yes, color me slack-jawed, too."

To my knowledge Libby did not have this material until now.

Ranger:Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

I never heard of such a thing and find it doubtful.

[Ralph L]

Clarice, I suppose anyone interested to read your AT piece would know you meant waivers of confidentiality in your first paragraph?

[clarice]

I hope so. If not I explain that without them reporters wouldn't cooperate with the feds.

[cathyf]

Ranger:

Could Libby sue the government for violation of his right to a fair trial because Fitz failed to fully investigate? Maybe that is the way to proceed and put Fitz's invetigation on trial is though a civil liberties action.

I don't think that is the right way to proceed. The biggest issues are the ones brought up in the "close issues" pleadings. After that, I think that the most important legal issues revolve around burden of proof questions. The way things are supposed to work is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, and so the lack of an investigation can only benefit the defense. Because the meaning of presumption of innocence is that if there is a guilty explanation of the facts and an innocent explanation of the facts, then the prosecution must take the investigation to a point where you rule out the innocent explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to do so, then the court is obliged to presume that the innocent explanation is true.

You can argue that there are many reasons having to do with basic justice for forcing the prosecution to bear the burden of proof. But there is are purely pragmatic issues as well -- if the defendent were to have the burden, then he should have the right to convene his own grand jury and hire his own police force in order to have any reasonable chance of retaining his other 5th and 6th amendment rights. The courts have quite reasonably ruled that defendents can't go off on wild fishing expeditions that would make trials go on for years -- if the investigation is inadequate then the defendant is not guilty. The only reason that the "prosecutor's tricks" worked is that in Walton's courtroom it was Libby's burden to prove himself innocent, and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.") Fixing this by overturning the conviction is right there squarely the job of judges. It was Walton's job to prevent it from happening; it is the appeals court's job (and if necessary the supreme court's job) to uphold the law. No civil rights lawsuits are required unless the appeals courts completely falls down.

[BobS]

Peter: Forgive another grassy knole moment (Dems make me cfrrazy like this) Perhaps Val needs no job. She and Joe are on the Soros payroll. How else could they afford to move to lefty la la land, New Mexico.

Also, for Ranger. Dems have already signaled how they are going to deal with an Iraq win. Deny we won and call everyone a liar. Reid pretty much has called Petraus one. Look for a PR hit job on Pace by the left.

See the Webb performence Sunday and how he not only said LGraham had not been to Iraq, he got called on it (7 trips for Graham) he then said that he gets the do and pony show. Deny, deny, deny and hope the MSM stays loyal to the DNC and continues to hate Bush above all else.

[Sue]

So, anybody gonna comment on Romney's $300 makeup job?

Why? Is Romney running on the two Americas theme also?

[Crust]

Tom, in case you didn't see it emptywheel is taking you to task re Armitage here:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/useful-details-.html

(I'm not a Plamaniac so I have no view on the merits either way. Just pointing it out.)

[Crust]

Trying again. Here's that link to emptywheel.

[anduril]

Fixing this by overturning the conviction is right there squarely the job of judges. It was Walton's job to prevent it from happening; it is the appeals court's job (and if necessary the supreme court's job) to uphold the law. No civil rights lawsuits are required unless the appeals courts completely falls down.

Posted by: cathyf | July 17, 2007 at 04:16 PM

Especially since we know that USA's seem to be able to get away with just about any antic they want to pull, and Fitz style SC's get even less supervision than that--like, zero.

BobS -- remember Novak's encounter with Hayden, spewing profanity because Novak dared to question Plame's covertness? I have zero respect for Graham, so I'm not sure how to even begin to express my disdain for a sleaze like Webb.

[MikeS]

Valerie Plame...has been scratching around trying to eke a living,

She must be doing something right. Up 'til now there have been no reports of illicit WMD in New Mexico.

[anduril]

In reading the Sept 2004 affidavit I am slack-jawed about the Cooper testimony - Cooper apparently testified that he had heard about Plame from one government source (presumably Rove) and one reporter prior to talking with Libby on July 12. The affidavit also says that "it appears likely" that the reporter in question was John Dickerson, since Ari claimed to have leaked to him and David Gregory on July 11.

But Dickerson denied that, and I don't recall Cooper contradicting Dickerson at the trial.

Do we know what efforts Fitz made to learn who Cooper's reporter source was? If the theory of the case was that the OVP was spreading the story among reporters, that would seem to be a logical way to nail down the chain of information and trace it back to the the OVP source--unless you were afraid the trail wouldn't lead to the OVP.

[PeterUK]

It is just interesting that a gobshite like Larry "The Piece" Johnson makes a crust out of being a celebrity spook and nobody ever asks Val anything.

[MJW]

I find this part of the not-a-transcript of Fleischer's testimony curious:

Jeffress: Walter Pincus –- can you say what area he writes in?

Fleischer: I called him because, White House reporters that covered this story. I was working off of who was covering the controversy. I knew he wasn't on the trip, so I could reach him.

Jeffress: Did you tell Pincus that Wilson's wife worked at CIA.

Fliescher: No sir. I would have remembered it if it happened.

According to the Sept. affidaivit, Fitz had "determined that Pincus' July 12 source was Ari Fleischer." I would think Fitz would have some duty as an officer of the court to immediately correct the record. No significant harm was done, since Pincus was called by the defense, but there may have been some harm. Forcing the government to contradict their own key witness's testimony seems very advantageous to the defense.

[HoosierHoops]

and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.")
cathyf
I don't understand this line in your post..sorry could you explain further?

[HoosierHoops]

It is just interesting that a gobshite like Larry "The Piece" Johnson makes a crust out of being a celebrity spook and nobody ever asks Val anything.

Posted by: PeterUK | July 17, 2007 at 05:08 PM
It says in his profile he had a distingished career for 4 years at the CIA..
4 years?
Crap I built Nuclear Submarines for 20 years and all i got was a paycheck and a bunch of atta boys..

[BobS]

Anduril...thanks for your comments regarding Hayden. That makes three instances his political leaning can be questioned. Perhaps Hayden is among the CIA Dems moles that include Plame, Mary McGregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern.

As for Graham, I must say his performance regarding the Imigr. bill left much to be desired. However, we cannot forget that he was among the House Managers who brought the articles of impeachment to the Senate. And he has been out front on defending our offensive ie surge when some wobbly rep senators started losing their nerve. Unlike others Graham has shown moxie when stooges like Webb start running their pie holes.

Now if you want to say that Voinovich from Ohio is the Fool on the Hill, I'm with you.

[hit and run]

Mikes:
She must be doing something right. Up 'til now there have been no reports of illicit WMD in New Mexico.

There's Uranium in them thar hills

[Sue]

Oh, good grief. I went to EW (thanks for the link, I can't resist links). This from Marcy:

Armitage NOT being a central player makes more sense than being one.

I know I've told the story about how my husband puts things together without reading the instructions. If he has left-over parts, he just tosses them, they weren't important or he could figure out where they went. If that isn't what they do over there I'll kiss your foot. If they can't make a player fit in their scenario they just toss them.

Sheesh...

[Sara]

I was going to comment in another thread the other day about the new "uranium in them thar hills" excitement. I remember back when I was still in elementary school, so it would have been the fifties, going to work with my Dad one day and his boss had just come back from the Southwest and was all excited about a new venture capital deal he wanted my Dad to get in on that was for mining uranium. I still have a piece of petrified wood about the size of a large coffee can with a strip of white quartz running down the middle that he brought me as a present and that I took to school for "show and tell." Anyway, my parents discussed whether to get in on the venture and decided against it. Are these the same uranium deposits from way back then? If so, wonder why the U.S. never got into mining there? Or maybe they did?

[maryerose]

Fleischer has a lot to answer for as does Dickerson. Someone needs to put them on the spot the next time they are out in public. Ditto Armitage and Gregory. They need to stop hiding under their beds and face the music.

[cathyf]

Sara, that's where the uranium for the Manhatten Project came from. (And it's why the bomb was designed & built at Los Alamos.)

This is the area that many westerns were filmed, and there is a lot of uranium ore in the environment, and it's kinda dusty. A large number of western actors & film crews died of lung cancer, especially among smokers. (While a smoker has a high chance of getting lung cancer, it's not 100% -- except for these guys.)

John Wayne probably was killed by those uranium deposits.

[cathyf]

and also Libby was convicted of things which are not crimes. (Telling the truth under oath when the truth "obstructed justice.") cathyf I don't understand this line in your post..sorry could you explain further?

Libby was acquitted of perjury in the Cooper charge, but convicted of obstruction. Now you can imagine a hypothetical where someone was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury as separate acts -- he lied and destroyed evidence, for example -- where the jury might decide that the person didn't lie, but that they did destroy the evidence.

But in the Libby case, he did nothing at all other than testify which could have obstructed justice, and Fitzgerald only claimed that he obstructed justice by lying. The jury decided that Libby did not lie about what he said to Cooper (that was the one charge that they acquitted on after it was shown that the exact same phrase that was in Libby's testimony was in Cooper's notes, even though Cooper did not testify to remembering Libby saying the phrase.) But they did convict on obstruction with Cooper. Since the only way he could have obstructed with Cooper was with his testimony, and his testimony was truthful, then they convicted him for obstructing by tellling the truth.

[Tom Maguire]

Thanks, I had not seen that. Geez, I am apparently the new spokesguy for the entire "Libby Lobby" - who knew?

Re the affidavits - they buttress Mr. Turner's point from a different direction - in the Aug (Miller) affidavit the IIPA gets mentioned in a bitterly controversial footnote.

But a quick read of the Sept (Cooper) affidavit does not reveal any mention of the IIPA at all.

Both affidavits mentions possible crimes relating to the improper disclosure of national defense information, which is pretty vague - the Miller affidavit actually cites the Espionage Act and the IIPA.

My point - IIPA and Espionage Act charges were BS, and Fitzgerald essentially knew it, without actually admitting it.

This was a perjury investigation and Libby's sentence should not have been adjusted to reflect a phony IIPA/Espionage Act fantasy.

Hmm, phony fantasy is probably redundant. Unnecessary, too.