"Just The Facts" Versus "Check The Statutes"

The Saturday Times reported on the widening probe into the NSA leaks, but we were especially intrigued by this:

The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information.

What?  They are reviewing the statutes to see if a law has been broken?  Didn't these guys listen to Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference, when he explained that that is exactly the *wrong* way to run an investigation?

Here we go:

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

Comments

[Kate]

Good it's past time to mock Fitzgerald. I was getting tired of having to lower my voice in reverence at the mention of his name and gasping in admiration at every word he utters.

Can we say it now. He botched the Plame investigation.

[maryrose]

Facts and the truth are what we have been waiting 2years for in the Plame case. Hopefully with the NSA case we will find the who what when where and why really soon and justice will be swift.

[maryrose]

Kate:
Yes now is the time-Fitz blew it "Big Time"

[Sue]

Hmmm...that doesn't bode well for the NSA investigation going forward, IMO.

[Extraneus]

An obvious point, perhaps?

[kim]

He demonstrates his error quite explicitly. He assumes two 'knowns' that weren't.

Why can't he self-correct?

And if not he, who?
==========================

[maryrose]

Extraneus:
"Peckinpah moment" classic

[clarice]

My thoughts exactly:

"Secondly, the article makes clear that the investigators are FIRST looking to determine if the predicates for a statutory violation can be proven before initiating a demand upon reporters or initiating a prosecution—which would have been the path Fitzgerald should have chosen in the Libby case. For it is clear this preliminary bar was never met in that case, rhetoric in a press release being no substitute for actual evidence which he now claims isn’t “material”. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4434
I have a big piece waiting in the queue--that makes this same point re the Libby obstruction count. Logically how can someone obstruct an investigation into something a rational prosecutor never could establish had been a crime?

Nice to see all prosecutors don't work ass backwards.

[Syl]

Fitz' method is called job longevity security.

Sheesh. I should have tried that when I was working. You want a program written? Sure, no problem! No, I don't care what you want it to do, I'll just write something and we can figure that all out later.

[maryrose]

How can Fitzgerald justify his process in this case." Ass-backwards"is precisely the situation.Can't wait for your article.

[Mescalero]

Tom--

Let's face it. The liberals are desperate to keep Jay Rockefeller out of jail. Will they succeed -- only time will tell.

[maryrose]

Mescalero:
you are correct-The Rock is going down.Get a republican to replace him because he plays fast and loose with the truth and with classified information. Then Bobby Byrd can stay.

[kim]

West Virginia is a union red state. Both o' dem are on thin and cracking ice.
====================================

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

I like Sen. Byrd being a face for the donks. I was sorely disappointed he didn't get any face time at the King funeral.

[clarice]

Kim, I think the Reps should get snaps of Byrd and Rocky hugging Gore and then play Gore's comments to the Saudis..

[MayBee]

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

And in the process, if we find out Looter Scibby said his wife deposited $2.30 in his account, when his wife says she didn't....well, we'll charge on that.

[kim]

'Economic summit' must be code for 'Here be money'.
==================================================

[clarice]

Yes. MayBee..that's right.
Meanwhile America's fund couple, Fitz and Miller were back in Ct yesterday. He was appealing J. Sweet's refusal to subpoena from the phone co. Miller's calls re the Holy Land raid. They indicated if they lost the appeal, they'd simply subpoena the records from her directly--now that they have the precedent of the Miller case Appeal in D.C. to hang their hat on.

[Appalled Moderate]

Um, when those journalists start doing heroic jail time for their leak, and then begin to cough up their sources as the months drag on, you guys will be thanking Fitz for the precedents he set. It's going to be much harder, in light of the Plame case, for these guys to stand on their made-up First Amendment rights.

[epphan]

A.M.
I'm comfortable with that trade.

[maryrose]

AM
It's their own fault they have to make this tradeoff. They were all so anxious to put forth Wilson's lies about who sent him and the fiction that there was a vendetta against Joe Wilson.

[clarice]

It's even more interesting. The WaPo reports today that a former Bush DoJ official filed an affidavit in the AIPAC Espionage case saying the law had never been indtended to cover those people like journos and lobbyists who orally received classified information because they had no way of ascertaining whether it was truly classified when they received it that way..I do think the Franklin case was weak and he folded for personal reasons (a gravely ill wife and 6 children and no deep pockets) and weaker still the one against the lobbyists even weaker since as the affidavit notes this occures all the time.

Wonder if that affidavit will carry the day and if it does how it will affect the NSA leak.

[maryrose]

How could it potentially effect the NSA leak?

[Appalled Moderate]

clarice:

Color me confused. It was Franklin who passed the info, and he surely knew it was classified. So, what's the deal, here?

[cathyf]

I've posted this before: Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? by Gabriel Schoenfeld

Especially after reading about the WWII Chicago Tribune case, and the laws passed after the war to make it easier to go after newspapers who publish "signals intelligence," it seems to me that the NYT is in deep doodoo even without any of the precedents of the Plame Kerfuffle.

cathy :-)

[maryrose]

Cathyf:
Thank you for the informative article site.
I just read that Scooter is cooperating with the proscutors in translating some of his foreign policy notes with the hope of using that information to strengthen his case that Plame's identity was not the main focus of his work assignments at the time.

[clarice]

AM, Franklin pled guilty. This involves the case against the two AIPAC officers who received information from Franklin and passed it on.I doubt if this affidavit even if accepted in that case will interfere with prosecuting the NYT or WaPo in the NSA leak case, because the President specifically warned them this was classified material.

[clarice]

Cathy--thank you for alerting me to that wonderful article. It is useful to the Plame/NSA and Franklin-Aipac cases.

[Appalled Moderate]

OK. I see where you are going.

I think prosecuting the reporters -- the NYT -- would be a mistake. It's the people who leak the info to the reporters that need to do jail time. Now, should the reporters choose to do a Judy Miller on their sources, they should be given the opportunity to sample the incarcerated lifestyle.

[clarice]

Well, that's a minimum, but I think as the Commentary article argues, the NYT could be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act and I would think if they violated it they will be.

[Extraneus]

And every time I read about how Keller & Co. weren't "convinced" that it would damage national security to print what they already knew was classified, my hope that they are prosecuted to the proverbial "fullest extent of the law" grows more fervent.

[clarice]

Yes, ex. It was not their call to make, was it?

[maryrose]

Msm still peddling the lie that Cheney leaked info that was classified in Plame case. This is a ploy to distract away from the real leakers of classified info the sources for NYT articles and thee NYT itself. It's a distraction technique used by elite media to define the story they want to emphasize or get out there. It's not going to work this time if DOJ and Porter Goss have anything to say about it.
OT- I'm disappointed in Tenet"s CIA. How did things deteriorate over there anyway? Were there too many Clinton-hangers on or what?

[clarice]

It's been in a four decades long death spiral when it comes to efficaciousness and at the same time became an empire onto itself. The bureaucrats there and in the DoS came to believe that thee Executive should follow their noodnik policies and not the other way around.

[larwyn]

You might want to check in with the today Able Danger Blog today.

And his link to live blogging for
very interesting opening statements by the Dems as to "whistleblowers".

My questions:
Are they now willing to let the AD info come out, knowing they can't stop it without
Nov 2006 Big Time victory?

Knowing it means throwing the Clintons overboard (they read the polls and know Hill's not going to fly) to protect Rocky? and the NSA/secret prisons leakers?

[clarice]

The NY Post has an article up saying a new DoD witness has come forward who confirms they had 13 hits on Mohammed Atta before 9/11 and couldn't pass it on. Other testimony should indicate that the knew something was about to happen in Aden two weeks before it did and the information was not passed on to the captian of the USS Cole.

There are only so many fingers you can put in the leaking Clinton dam.

[larwyn]

I only get CSPAN and CSPAN2 - but
find it odd(NOT!) that the Kurdish
Symphony is playing on CSPAN now -
and they keep rerunning other
things - NO ABLE DANGER HEARING
yet today.

Yeah they are "neutral" - not if you count the airtime given during
normal awake hours.

Now Marc Morial of the National Urban League is on talking about
Katrina.

Any bets he'll mention all the fraud by the "victims"?

I'll probably have to wait until
AM HOURS to see AbleDanger hearings- if I am lucky and stay
awake. EST here.

[clarice]

The hearings start tomorrow..

[larwyn]

There was a hearing today regarding
the closing down of Lt.Col. Tony
Shaffer's testimony and the removal
of his security clearance by the
DIA. Which effectively removed him
from his current job.

AbleDanger Blog has Weldon's press
conference and link to the live blogging of that hearing. And promises hearing transcript.

FYI - CSPAN 2 (HOUSE STILL IN ON
CSPAN) is now showing Tony Blair
to be followed by Gordon Brown and
they will rebroadcast the Urban League's Pres. on Katrina.

Remember CSPAN IS NEUTRAL!

[clarice]

[i]NEWS BRIEFING WITH REP. CURT WELDON (R-PA)

TOPIC: HEARINGS ON OPERATION ABLE DANGER

THE HOUSE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
12:40 P.M. EST, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006

REP. WELDON: Good afternoon. I apologize for being late. Traffic coming down from Pennsylvania was a little heavier than I thought.

Thank you for coming out. I'm Curt Weldon, and I'm here to announce the hearing that everyone said would never occur. That will begin tomorrow. [/i]http://abledangerblog.com/

[larwyn]

Also the hearing is to be on
CSPAN at 9:30 - but it is Gordon
Brown on one and the House on the other
Able Danger Blog

Whistleblower hearing on C-SPAN Radio

UPDATE: You can watch the streaming video with Real Player here. It's on now. You can listen to it live here.

Just got a C-SPAN Alert. The hearing will be rebroadcast tonight on C-SPAN TV at 9:30pm ET.

From C-SPAN:

Tuesday, February 14
House Hearing on National
Security Whistleblowers
On C-SPAN Radio at 1pm ET

Tony Shaffer is scheduled to testify on the first panel of witnesses.

Still nothing on coverage for Weldon's press conference at 12:30, but it looks like both CNN and C-SPAN with be taping the hearing today. Maybe CNN will cut in, but I doubt they will show very much live.

GOVERNMENT REFORM

1:00-Open

CNN Network POOL Cap DA 5; C-Span switched feed Cap DA 6.

House Cable System Channel 33

National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations Subc. Hrng. on National security whistleblowers in the post 9/11 era. Pub. wits. 2154 RHOB.

[danking70]

That transcript from Weldon's briefing with the Q&A was just fascinating.

He called out Gorelick, Snell, and Zeikow.