Powered by TypePad

« "Seethe The Day" | Main | Shorter Trouncing »

May 22, 2006



However - I am finding some of the direct quotations from the Pincus article in the transcript of the May 5th hearing...My goodness, cherry-picking the available information, leaping to conclusions not supported by the evidence - was this article prepared by the WaPo or the OVP?

Wow, get out of my head TM! Talk about a day late and a dollar short, or something...


There was a hearing on May 16, BTW, so I ought to hustle a transcript - evidently Pincus has not.

This was hearing on media subpoena's, right? And yes...TM 1 Pincus super "0"


I sent your excellent note to the editors with a suggestion that (a) they stop assigning him to cover this case (b) or supervise his work more closely and (c) in any event correct the story more expeditiously than they did his June 2003 report which took them 2 1/2 years to correct.

What sloppy reporting!


The May 16 hearing was on the reporters' notes Libby has subpoenaed.,+2006+Libby+hearing&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3>Classify Pincus


***the CIA official discussed in the defendant’s presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column.***

What's really weird is that there's no indication that this CIA official himself knew Valery was classified. He seems to be speaking in general terms.

Without his exact words, it's just more fitz razzle-dazzle.


Once again, it shows what folly it is to hang one's hat on a specific turn of phrase in a newspaper article. Or you know, use it to glue one's conspiracy together.


Given the strained wording of the quote, "the CIA official discussed in the defendant’s presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column," I don't think one can reasonably conclude the CIA official was claiming to know anything about Plame beyond what was in Novak's column, much less her particular classified status.

Foo Bar

And not so key that Fitzgerald will specifically aver in a filing that Libby was warned of her classifed status.

But key enough that the defense evidently understands this element to be part of Fitz's case, as the excerpt from the May 12 defense filing at the end of the Pincus article (about Harlow possibly being called) indicates:

Such testimony would support defense's contention that Ms. Martin did not tell Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified, which would help the defense to contest the government's argument that Mr. Libby should have known such information was classified

I agree it's odd that Libby's claim that he didn't know her status was classifed is absent from the perjury counts if in fact Fitz is going to try to show that he was warned she was classified. On the other hand, given that the defense characterizes Fitz's argument this way, is it really such a stunning leap of faith for Pincus to do so?

Even in the April 12 defense filing, in the same paragraph where Libby is said to have testified "unequivocally" that he didn't know she was classified, a few sentences later the defense writes:

The government surely cannot, on the one hand, contend that Mr. Libby knew he had revealed classified information ...

So I think the answer to your question "Where in the filings?" may be that it's inferred from the defense filings.


This reminds me of a comment I didn't get around to making in the previous thread regarding the CJR's assertion that Pincus clarified that he first learned Wilson's wife was affiliated with the CIA on July 12. As Cecil pointed out, it was a paraphrase, not a quote, and we've all seen how various reporters (such as Isakoff), along with NBC's attorneys, claim Russert has definitively amd publicly denied knowing Wilson's wife was a CIA employee at the time he spoke to Libby, even though he has never done so.


Foo Bar, quoting Libby's lawyers: Such testimony would support defense's contention that Ms. Martin did not tell Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA was classified, which would help the defense to contest the government's argument that Mr. Libby should have known such information was classified.

Well, I guessing the defense figured out this would be part of Fitz's argument when he said in the Feb.24 hearing, "So we will argue that he knew or should have known it was classified and that he was being investigated for disclosing classified information."

However, the best Fitz has to offer in that regard seems to be a the "secure telephone" discussion, in which, Fitz has admitted, Plame wasn't even mentioned.


Why is the WAPO allowing the conflicted Pincus to continue to report on this case. That's how we get sloppy, biased reporting like this. Oh, that's right, the WAPO doesn't care.


As a bonus comment, note how Fitz added "or should have known." I suspect if he had evidence that Libby was told Plame's status was classified, he wouldn't have felt the neeed to fudge.


Here is what Fitz said in the Feb. 24 hearing about the evidence that Libby knew Plame's status was classified: "[W]e believe that there will be evidence at the trial that at times he talked about it with other people as if he couldn't talk about it on an open telephone line or told someone else it was hush-hush or QT."

It is, of course, possible Fitz is holding back some significant piece of evidence proving Libby was told of Plame's supposed classified status, but I think that's unlikely.


Why is this even relevant. If Libby KNEW she was classified on 12 July, he had already discussed her with the reporters.

Libby could simply have said, when I had those dicsussions I believed the information was unclassified, I didn't find out until later that the CIA says it was classified.



If Fitz believes Libby knew she was classified prior to 12 July, then charge him with the actual crime.

I love how Fitz says the article is relevant because the witness DID NOT read it but was just asked about it...





I'm beginning to believe that poor Libby is toast. I agree that the case against him is weak, but the WAPO allows Pincus to shamelessly cheerlead for the prosecution, the judge seems afraid of Fitz, and the jury pool will be brutal.

The best bet for Libby now is for Rove to be indicted since the conservative press will then turn its collective attention on this case and discover that Elliot Ness is a political incompetent hack. This could begin to lay the foundation for early pardons.


Libby should have known for sure she was NOT classified before discussing her. ISTM that he didn't know for sure either way, but still was careful with Russert (didn't want to confirm) and Cooper (I didn't even know he had a wife bit).

I think fitz's claim is that whether Libby found out she was classified before or after he spoke with reporters, that knowledge would affect how he testified to the FBI and GJ.

In other words fitz thinks Libby is a cad and if he found out for sure she was classified he'd lie to the GJ where otherwise he wouldn't.

In my view it doesn't matter. If Libby is a cad he'd lie whether he knew for sure or not because he knows he's supposed to know for sure.

IOW that CIA official didn't tell Libby anything he didn't know already.

But let's let fitz think that CIA official bit is important. It can be knocked down at trial for the generalized, not specific, info it is.


30 years in prison for being a cad...a little steep.


From Vanity Fair...

"In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.

That same year, Wilson also came back to Washington, as a senior director for African affairs at the National Security Council, where, according to the Reagan administration's assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Chester Crocker, he was the most effective person in that job during the Clinton administration. A source, however, says that Wilson was not universally popular, because of what was perceived to be too strong sympathies for the interests of the Africans and Europeans. "He's the kind of person who would remind Americans of things they might not want to hear," says this source.

After only one year in the job Wilson decided to retire and go into the private sector because "we wanted to have kids, and felt that it had become very difficult to live off two government salaries." He set up a consultancy, J. C. Wilson International Ventures, with an office in downtown Washington at the headquarters of the Rock Creek Corporation, an investment firm of which little is known. Wilson's right-wing critics have been quick to condemn the affiliation as "murky," though Wilson does not work for Rock Creek and merely rents space and facilities there."

I find it hard to believe Plame would remain a noc after the CIA suspected her name was given to the Russians by Aldrich Ames in 1994.

If you were a noc, would you choose to bring children into this world...especially in light of the Ames outing? Wouldn't that jeopardize the safety and well being of her children?


There are no differences.


given that the defense characterizes Fitz's argument this way, is it really such a stunning leap of faith for Pincus to do so?

Is the role of a "journalist" "reporting""news" to infer special subjective meaning from said news? Well, meaning from very old news? Particularly from a written transcript?

No. It's lame, sensationalist and really sort of amateurish whether or not the subject matter makes you warm and tingly.


BTW does anyone recall the *date* Woodward talked to UGO? Or did he say? I can't remember.



I think Fitzgerald is just bringing up the classified status to establish a motive for Libby to lie. Fitzgerald isn't saying that Libby knew that Plame was classified at the time he talked about her to reporters, but that he found out after Novak's column. If Libby has said that he didn't know, even after Novak's column... Well that still makes no sense. Nothing makes sense really.

If Fitzgerald doesn't have enough evidence to show that Libby knew she was classified, how is he going to use it to establish a motive for Libby to lie? I guess he's just going to use it to bamboozle the jury instead of going for the "beyond reasonable doubt" he would need to get a conviction.


---Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. ---

Same as Pincus and Novak's source.

--- Jeffress said last night. "The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson's wife?"---

---Downie said The Post waited until late yesterday to disclose Woodward's deposition in the case in hopes of persuading his sources to allow him to speak publicly.---


---Woodward and a Post lawyer declined to discuss why the official may have stepped forward this month.---


---Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction---

If this conversation took place BEFORE Armitage had read the INR memo, then Armitage but more specifically Marc Grossman may have some problems and since all this Armitgae talk has heated up AFTER all the Libby filings I would not be surprised if this were the case.

If Grossman was less than forthcoming about his personal relationship with the WIlson's, in the same manor Armitage was not forthcoming about his contacts with reporters, I bet all the Libbys filings focusing on Grossman have led Fitz.

That is that, Groosman briefed his boss based on his ***personal knowledge*** - then ordered the INR for an **official channel** way of knowing. And like I said, if he left out the part that he INDEPENDENTLY knew the Wilson's and that Valerie worked at the CIA, that Wilson has called him months before specifically about this than Armitage --if he convinced Fitz this is the case (and I can't see why he wouldn't) may be cooperating on an investigation of Grossman -- hence the spinny nature of the Daily News.


***the CIA official discussed in the defendant’s presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column.***

"The defendant's presence" is a hell of a long way from "I told the defendant".But is it nice that Fitzgereald is getting round to defining the offence,pity he didn't do this from the beginning.

However "classified" is the oldest trick in any government departments box,it is simply designed to stiffle further inquiry.I would bet that the CIA even classifies the number of paper clips it uses.


it is 3 am for me, so I'm typo queen...

but given the filings that are suggestive that Grossman and the Wilson's have a strong history...don't you think it is problematic that Grossman may have briefed his boss BEFORE the INR memo (which he did not share) and then said he warned Libby about the classified nature even though the INR memo did not indicate this?

Seems to me the INR memo Grossman ordered was only a CYA to **learn officially** and If Grossman left out the factoid of personal knowledge to investigators would be pretty suspicious now, especially with UGO/Woodward meeting.

And if Judy Miller learned from Army too, then yikes.




what up?

Tom Maguire

From Foo Bar:

which would help the defense to contest the government's argument that Mr. Libby should have known such information was classified

Well, if the standard is "should have known", that is still a step back from "did know".

Now, the Feb 24 hearing does say "knew or should have known", but, as noted by MJW, why the hedge on that?

Pincus may be right, but he is speculating rather than reporting.



However "classified" is the oldest trick in any government departments box,it is simply designed to stiffle further inquiry.I would bet that the CIA even classifies the number of paper clips it uses.

It is true that more is classified than is necessary, but the motive is not nefarious. It's simply bureacratic.

When a person makes a decision whether to classify something he is quite aware that a decision NOT to classify could be an irreversible error. Thus when they err it is to err on the safe side.

Also in a bureaucracy the tendency is for those at the bottom to keep things from those at the top. Someone may decide to classify a piece of information he's responsible for but it didn't have to be classified. But nobody in a position to reverse the classification ever knows about it unless it's brought to his attention.

There are millions and millions and millions of pieces of classified information. It's not possible for anyone to have a handle on all of it. Much of it is compartmentalized anyway.

In fact that's why the classification/declassification procedures were completely overhauled in the '90's. And one of the new things instituted was automatic expiration of some types of classification.

And remember for FOIA requests classification is only one of NINE elements considered before releasing any data. The others are by statute and include such things as the Privacy Act.

I really do believe that our government has struck a good balance between what is necessary to be kept secret and what is not. It's never going to be perfect but I think we do pretty darned well.


York and Krutz have items on TruthNOT

York with Andy McCarthy quotes



WSJ reporter Squeo on C-SPAN right now.


As a side note, off topic, anyone familiar with CATO? CATO came out with a new report showing how Bush overstepped the boundaries of his presidential powers.


I love CATO (mostly) but they seem to be among those who think privacy is a constitutional right rather than a reasonable expectation.

And both lefty and libertarian types are much fonder of the Legislative and Judicial branches than the Executive. (Not sure why. Perhaps because the Legislative is a concensus body and the Judicial has all those appeals, but the Executive stands alone.)

Tom Maguire

I should add, good job by Foo Bar and MJW.

Foo Bar

I think "know or should have known" on Feb 24 might be intended to cover both pre-and-post the July 14 meeting with the CIA official. So Fitz can't prove that Libby knew she was classified when he was talking to reporters pre-Novak column, but because he's got that July 14 meeting with the CIA official, he can prove that Libby knew by then and therefore Libby knew (at the very least) that he had made an inadvertent but serious mistake (perhaps a firing offense, if found out, if not a crime) and therefore he had motive to lie.

I guess I can see how the WaPo headline might be taken to mean that Libby knew she was classified when he was talking to reporters so I can see how you guys might be mad about that.

Here's more from April 12:

The government surely cannot, on the one hand, contend that Mr. Libby knew he had revealed classified information (and thus felt in jeopardy of being fired), and on the other hand withhold from the defense information that would tend to prove her employment status was not classified and that others who knew of that employment had the same understanding.

I think that makes it pretty unambiguous that the defense's understanding is that Fitz is going to argue that Libby knew he had (possibly unknowingly) revealed classified info at the time he was testifying to the grand jury (which goes to motive) although maybe not that Libby knew he was revealing classified info at the time he was talking to reporters.


And the jurors are gonna "Say what?" To Fitz.


He's not trying to solve a crossword puzzle, he's trying to put someone in jail, and committing a tort at the same time.


I think Foo Bar is exactly right.


Fitz has a duty to see that justice is done, he is derelict, Libby's been damaged and there is direct cause between Fitz's dereliction and Libby's(and my) damages.


I think Pincus just made an error on the date of the May 5 hearing, partly for the reason Tom mentions and perhaps also partly because a key passage in the May 12 filing refers to a hearing on March 5, which is obviously an error for May 5 but which probably misled Pincus.


It takes a lot of nerve for the CIA to scold anybody for disclosing details of the Wilson trip when the CIA allowed a cabal of mid level dissidents (including and possibly led by Wilson's wife) to dispatch a junket that resulted in lies printed in the Washington Post and New York Times attacking the administration. After that Valerie was never going to remain undiscovered.

Since it was UGO, not Libby, who disclosed Plame was CIA, the post Novak CIA comment about something Libby already knows is not credible motive for evasive testimony. Libby almost certainly knows whatever he might have said was not what appeared in Novak's article.

Since Libby admits learning first from Cheney (in June) and discussing it later with reporters, any official problems wrt secrecy would not be avoided by the "heard it from reporters" claim.

For Libby to say to reporters something like "you should check out who sent Wilson because some other reporters are saying it was his wife" is a way of letting them know Joe's credibility is questionable without giving them a quote for publication.

Rove's disclosure to Cooper is also along the lines of deep background. "Don't put too much faith in Wilson's story because there's stuff coming out soon to discredit the substance of his claims. And BTW it was his wife who sent him not us."

The CIA scold as motive is not credible except as an MSM soundbite, and is likely another example of Fitz PR prosecution as punishment for a non crime and disregard for actual law and facts. The Fitz shameful list:

  1. Libby was the primary leak;

  2. Plame was not generally known;

  3. NIE vigorous pursuit Key Finding was a deliberate lie;

  4. The carefully worded implication that Libby was influenced by Cheney's annotations on the Wilson op-ed;

For the purpose of generating the inevitable MSM inference and assertion that Plame was part of secret disclosure conspiracy.


This prosecution is negligent and the damages are enormous, not negligible.


I agree with TM your responses have been helpful.
I also agree with clarice that Pincus is too biased and too involved in the back story to continue to write sloppily about this case and to use such incendiary headlines that border on slander. Talk about cherry-picking!
This case from the get-go for all concerned comes right up to the line of slander and false innuendo; many times going over the line. Pincus's piece is one example. Let's get Cathie Martin on the record about what she actually said to Libby. Is she available or in she in true UGO fashion hiding under her desk?



The emails could be the key to your theory. If Grossman had emails to someone discussing Plame that pre-dates the INR, that could be why they are classified (the discussion of Plame) and why they are so important to Libby in his pursuit to show why Grossman would have reason to 'shade' his own testimony.

JM Hanes

Foo Bar

That sounds about right to me, because elsewhere (in Tatel?) didn't Fitz explicitly state he had no reason to believe that Libby was aware of her status (whatever that was) at the time he spoke to reporters?

It also sounds more and more as though the CIA official in the room was saying the same kind of thing you could have read in any newspaper speculation at that time, i.e. no, I haven't read the article, but if she was a NOC and Novak exposed her it would be really bad.

However, since the CIA itself confirmed Plame's "affiliation" with the Agency to a reporter when Novak inquired, Libby would also have every reason to believe that, in fact, it was no big deal.


If they are going to claim that at some point before the investigation began Libby found out she was classified and that is why he started his reporter bafflegab, why then did he source it back to reporters to start with? That really makes no sense. He was already doing damage control before he knew he had caused damage?


OT But thought it interesting that LJ says Truthout is sticking to its guns and justifiably so. The rest of the article is just a posting of the Truthout article, no further commentary from LJ.


I agree that the WAPO should not let Pincus report on this case. For one, Woodward said that he told Pincus about Plame, something Pincus still denies. That, and the fact that he used Wilson as a source, and he is now part of this case make him a compromised reporter. The WaPo has plenty of people they can use to report on Libby...pick another one--or at least print a disclaimer above anything Pincus writes stating his role in this twisted saga.

As for classified. Sorry, I still think this is BS, and I want to know whether or not the CIA official Fitz is referring to in Alan Foley.

For one, anything Val touched after 1994--when the KGB found out about her-- would have been compromised. She outed her own "Brewster Jennings" network on the FEC filings, so excuse me, I doubt it was any big deal, or the CIA would have made sure the entry was pulled.

I also remember a Chicago Tribune piece a while back that "outed" hundreds of CIA agents just from using internet search engines. Pretty pathetic if that's how the CIA does business. Are they going to arrest reporters at the Chicago Tribune too?

Then, to top it off, we have Libby's team and their five witnesses who will testify that Wilson outed her himself.

Is this is all Fitz has? From what I've seen on this thread alone, the WAPO should retract this story.


I agree completely with your comments.
Kate: Don't give up hope-this is another slam job by WAPO and Pincus because hey are running scared. "Methinks they protesteth too much" kind of like Matthews and Shuster on Hardball.
Good article by Kurtz today in his media notes re: Leopold .
Also Excellent Article by Barone and Mark Steyn on immigration. Both are must-reads.


he had made an inadvertent but serious mistake (perhaps a firing offense, if found out, if not a crime) and therefore he had motive to lie.

Not if he wasn't the source (he wasn't).

Not after admitting learning from Cheney in June and discussing with reporters in July (he did).

Hearing it from reporters in between does not remove official sanction. Commiting perjury just to provide a lame "excuse" is not credible analysis. Yes, sure it happens but it's not reasonable speculation.

brenda taylor

is it true that pincuses wife works at the state dept.thats probaly pinkies source or one of them.

Bruce Hayden

At one level, "or should have known" is lawyerspeak for not being quite sure, so, you are sure this way. But the should have known is probably not enough knowledge for charging Libby with disclosing that information - so, arguably, this is indication that Fitz knew he didn't have a case there, because he surely would have tried to bring charges on this, as it is part of the original investigation, as opposed to the "coverup" thereof, and, thus, would have added significant credibility to his prosecution of Libby.

Tom Maguire

My guess is that Fitzgerald's point about the status and Libby's motive could be either:

(a) political embarrassment;

(b) strict enforcement by Bush - "I will fire anyone who leaks classified info" does not have an out for "except those who did so by accident". (And maybe it shouldn't - this was still sloppy tradecraft all around).

However, does anyone think that an after-the fact warning creats actual legal jeoprdy fior Libby under IIPA?


Most lawyers use a qualifier. If you have a contract dated April 1, 2006 and you file a pleading, most of the time it will say on or about April 1, 2006. I'm not convinved the qualifier means anything.


(a) political embarrassment;

How much embarassment is avoided after admitting learning in June from Cheney and discussing with reporters in July? Not enough.

(b) strict enforcement by Bush

If Cheney annotated the Wilson op-ed and sent Libby out to spread the word, why would there be any problem from the bosses?

Too thin for deliberate perjury.


I do so hope I will not be the only one here who wrote the editors of the Wa Po. HINT

richard mcenroe

It's nearly 11 AM in DC. Where's Rove's Monday indictment?

JM Hanes


"This prosecution is negligent and the damages are enormous, not negligible."

I'd be really interested to know precisely where the pushback in defense of Armitage is coming from. Is there any doubt that if Armitage had stepped up to bat immediately and identified himself as Novak's source, this story would have speedily died on the vine? Just compare the reaction to Powell vs. Cheney so far.

In the OVP, Cheney jots notes on a newspaper clipping and it's a smoking gun. Meanwhile, over at State, everybody's talking up a storm, memos are flying from Ford to Grossman to Powell.

Fitz, and the whole host of outing theorists, could make a much stronger, documented, argument that Powell's office was more intensely focused on the Plame/Wilson connection than the OVP -- and incidentally, never even bothered to fill Cheney in on what they found out. The OVP is declassifying the NIE; State is whipping out its double super secret stamp.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Joe Wilson had been running around Washington DC talking about his wife's work with anyone who'd listen. Novak's piece says he confirmed her employment with the CIA itself.

Yet Libby is supposed to have known it was classified? Puhleeze.


There's definitely a movement to make the WH the whipping boy in all of this instead of the real perpetrators at the CIA and State. I want to see a copy of the referral letter and I want UGO officially exposed so that we can get to the bottom of this mess.
Also if Gonzales or Deputy McNulty shut down the Fitz show re: Rove more power to them It's about time someone took charge.

JM Hanes

The Pincus article just strikes me as lazy. With the blogosphere gone wild, his editor probably just asked him for a 700 word update. He's never thought this was a crime story and may not really be following it all that closely; the Post probably just figured he'd be a safer bet than Gellman & Linzer. It's a pretty straightforward piece in comparison to the usual fare.


A blog with all the email threats of Larry and Jason would be interesting



In regard to classification,it is extremely common for bureaucrats to classify to CYA,this is the CIA involved in a rather messy debacle involving,forged documents that got lost for six months,family being sent on investigative missions with no confidentiality agreement,a host of self interested leakers and a huge political scandal.Further, this is an agency which lies,spies and manipulates for a living,it would be more reassuring to see the signature on the referal and learn the chain of command who gave it the go ahead.


JMH--You don't think it damaging that in the very same edition where Kurtz attacks JL (and in doing so falsely states Plame was "covert") the paper runs a piece by Walter that is riddled with error, a piece by one of the two reporters who got the Plamarama airborne which itself was riddled with lies?

I do. They all flunk my course in journalism.

Cecil Turner

It's a pretty straightforward piece in comparison to the usual fare.

It is, but he manages to take a theoretical discussion about why classified status would be pertinent, and uses it to make a misleading and prejudicial case about Libby knowing and lying about it. (Which is quite a bit farther than Fitz went, and reminiscent of his earlier key judgments howler.) But as long as we all know how deep in the tank he is for Wilson, and to take his related statements with a salt shaker, concur this one is pretty typical.

BTW, my wife and I had the "tar baby" discussion, and she thought the racist usage was the common one. Interestingly, she's from the MidWest (where I'm not widely traveled), and thought it more prevalent there. [Shrug]


My introduction to and usage of 'tarbaby' is from Uncle Remus, but I'm aware that political correctedness has warped the language, so I'm careful to use it only where its meaning cannot be mistaken.

The stalinists cannot permanently bind speech. It precedes ideology.


Also being from the Midwest your wife's interpretation is correct though we have also heard it in relationship to the Uncle Remus tales.


Whattya bet it was originally from pine tar. Now I'm going to have to go look. What fun. I'm stuck.



In the OVP, Cheney jots notes on a newspaper clipping and it's a smoking gun.
Bingo, and it's illustrative of a general problem which Fitzgerald has in this case. Which is that he has taken descriptions of executive officers and their staffs exercising the most basic day-to-day functions of their offices (supervising executive branch bureaucrats, declassifying information and publicising it) and wrapped it in accusatory language. It's not just that he is attempting to criminalize politics, he is attempting to criminalize the exercize of constitutional executive branch authority over the bureaucracy.

(There is a certain irony in the legal shorthand of referring to Fitzgerald as "the government" in this case. Yeah, he's a "government" all right -- the only question is which government he is. Not only is Fitzgerald an unconstitutional extra-governmental officer, he appears to be at war with the United States government.)

cathy :-)


Very good observation. I don' feel like he is serving the needs of society and the USA government; it's more like a personal vendetta that wastes taxpayer money.


Ain't the crime, it's the coverup. Weren't you paying attention during Watergate?

Sara (Squiggler)

I found that bio of Fitz very disturbing. He appears to be a "crusader," of the liberal PC type. He places himself above the law because he believes only in the laws that he believes in and makes the rest up as he goes along to fit his view of what he thinks should be and not what actually is. He seems to be more in the mold of the Muslim Extremist who was going around burning down buildings and killing people over some cartoon drawings.


Cathy, would you please add your very pithy remarks on criminalizing normal government behavior to the razzle dazzle site? They are worth repeating in the letter to OPR.

Lew Clark

I'm still waiting for Fitzgerald to define what he means by "her status was classified". In 35 years in government and in the intelligence business, I never heard that phrase stated that way. When I hear "status", I immediately think of employment status (active, inactive, probation, retired, etc." If someone walked up to me and said "Tom Maguire works with you, what is his status?", I would never think they were asking, is he is covert or not. I'd think, either employment status or maybe travel status "He's on his way, but not here yet." And to the point. If someone told me "Tom's status is classified.", they'd get a blank stare. Tom is retired, but we're keeping it a big secret? Tom is on a plane halfway from LA to DC, but we're not telling anyone?
So, I'm still assuming, Fritz is stating the law the way it should be, not how it is. Plame did not fit IIPA. So she was, as all other CIA employees that do not fit IIPA, fair game. It may not be wise, and may even violate CIA policy to reveal that a person still carried as NOC is a CIA employee. But, if they do not meet IIPA, it is not a crime! A CIA employee that "outs" a NOC that fails to meet IIPA could be fired, but not prosecuted. An employee of another agency who "outed" a NOC who did not meet IIPA, would not even be fired.

So I really believe Fitz's prosecution plan is 1. He talked about a CIA employee who's employment was not protected by law, but still, you shouldn't go talking about such things. 2. When he realized he was talking about stuff that might have political ramifications, especially with a hostile media, he lied to cover himself.

That makes for a very weak case. Libby was not totally and explicitly truthful (maybe) and he just happened to be testifying, so it's perjury.

Fitz still has his big problem with the underlying crime. And I don't think the defense is going to let him get away with "Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, and it's a crime to say she did. Why is it a crime, because I say so!"


The NYDaily News reports that teo CIA officials, Grenier and Schmall will be testifying that they told Libby about Plame and therefore he lied when he said he first heard it from reporters. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html

I think we ought to prepare and sell THR LIBBY CASE FOR DUMMIES so we don't have to keep reading gross mischaracterizations about the case day after day.

The comments to this entry are closed.