Novak - Hayden Won't Say If Plame Is "Covert" Under IIPA

Here is the lead from Bob Novak's new piece, with emphasis added:

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard last Friday on television as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the director of Central Intelligence. Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra Wednesday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

No, we are not surprised since we pointed out the obvious weakness in Waxman's statement last Friday, but here is a quick recap.  From Waxman:

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Fine, the CIA considered her to be "covert" as per their own internal classification scheme - who doubts it, and, from a legal perspective, who cares? 

Sorry, that was a rhetorical question - every lefty blogger covering the hearing whooped and declared victory with Hayden's statement as read by Waxman; I'll toss in Christy Hardin Smith of firedoglake as an example.  Read her carefully and try to identify any hint at all that Hayden's statement was not definitive as to Ms. Plame's legal status.

On the legal question what Waxman conspicuously did not say was anything like "The CIA Counsel has reviewed Ms. Plame's confidential file as well as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and concluded that she qualifies as "covert" under that statute."

The WaPo covered the fact that "covert" is used in the non-legal sense:

Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

"Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)

And we had some interesting hearing testimony.  This is from Ms. Plame:

MS. PLAME WILSON: For those of us that were undercover in the CIA, we tended to use "covert" or "undercover" interchangeably. I'm not -- we typically would not say of ourselves we were in a "classified" position. You're kind of undercover or overt employees.

And she emphasized several times that she was not a lawyer offering a legal opinion of her status under the statute.  For example:

REP. DAVIS: The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I'm not a lawyer.

REP. DAVIS: That's why I asked if they told you. I'm not asking for your interpretation.

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no. But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.

REP. DAVIS: I'm not arguing with that. What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act -- and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time -- but did anybody say that you were so designated under the act? Or was this just after it came to fact?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no one told me that.

She does not know her own legal status; Waxman did not offer the opinion of either Hayden or CIA Counsel as to her legal status; per Novak, DCI Hayden is not willing to opine on her legal status - hmm, I think the question of her legal status is, at best, unresolved.

That said, at some point Waxman's silence speaks volumes - surely he knew what answer he wanted from Hayden, yet apparently he didn't get it.  Dare we infer that this is because the CIA legal counsel won't vouch for her covert status under the statute?

And my seemingly-simple suggestion remains on the table and unaddressed - CIA pensions are adjusted (upwards!) for service overseas (statute).  So, does Ms. Plame's final pension reflect any upward adjustments for service abroad in her last five years?  Surely Waxman can answer this question without giving away state secrets.

To be clear, the Other Tom has argued cogently and correctly in the comments last month that this would not be dispositive, since it would merely reflect CIA employee practice rather than the legislative intent of Congress when they passed the IIPA.  However, it would be nice to see the definition of "service abroad" even in that context, and I bet a judge asked to rule on the applicability of the IIPA would have a similar question as to legal practice in other areas.

So although an answer to the pension question would not end the debate, it would shift the terms a bit. 

If Ms. Plame did receive an upward bump for service abroad, Libby's defenders would need to push harder on the notion that the legislative intent in 1982 was quite different from CIA compensation practice today.   I am personally undaunted, but yes, it would be one more boulder to roll uphill.

On the other hand, if the CIA does not consider her to have performed service abroad per their own employee practices, the notion that she was covered under the IIPA will remain as even more of a faith-based initiative than currently.

Just tossing that out there.  In related news, Novak mentions that Chris Shays skipped the hearing - since he is my Congressman, I need to end my slacking off on this (and I will put this Chris Suellentrop plug in my letter - hah!  It's almost like a Times endorsement).

ERRATA:  This CRS Study skips the "service abroad" question but the footnotes represent a guide to the legislative history.

The John Conyers letter of 30 Jan 2004 from the CIA and about the CIA referral of the Plame case is no longer hosted at the House Judiciary Committee server, but Josh Marshall still has a copy.

Key point - the CIA referral was for an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information", *not* for an IIPA violation.  Since Ms. Plame's status was classified, that is fine, but the referral does not answer the question of whether the CIA believed an IIPA violation had occured.

Comments

[ErnestAbe]

Who cares about Hayden's opinion of the application of the IIPA law. He is not a lawyer, and his opnion on this matter of law is not probative, and not appropriate.

The important fact, often overlooked, is the the CIA made an official referral for an investigation of the Plame leak.

[Pofarmer]

The important fact, often overlooked, is the the CIA made an official referral for an investigation of the Plame leak.

You have absolutely no idea what the referral said. That's the fact.

[Pofarmer]

And, one other thing. How would printing that Valerie Wilson(or Plame, whatever) was Joe Wilson's wife, have damaged her "Covert" operations.

You gonna tell me she was running super secret black ops under her real name?

[ErnestAbe]

Fact: CIA referred Plame leak for investigation.
Fact: CIA claims Plame was covert by its own definition.
Irrelevant Canard: Hayden is not in the position to give an opinion on applicability of IIPA statute.

[EH]

Hayden is such a liberal pantywaist. Why does he hate America?

[hit and run]

After the Fact: CIA claims Plame was covert by its own definition.

During the time in question...

Fact: CIA treated her identity as if she were not covert.

[jack moss]

The fact remains that the agency has never come out and plainly stated her status - which is very telling.

Via here:

"As I told you before, watching Garbo with a colleague familiar with her “status” he nearly hit the wall when she said she was covert and had been out of the country in the fives years previous to Novak’s column. I think the response was “Bullshit” or something to that effect."

To the referrence to referrals, they mean squat. During my tenure we sent many such referrals, many based on less info than that of Plame's.

If the agency had plainly stated from the outset, "Yes she fits the criteria under IIPA, then Armitage would be breaking rocks (or playing golf as the country club lock downs allow).

The undeniable fact is that Plame was not covert, was not covered - nor protected and incidentally "released" from active service specifically for her involvement (nepotism) in recommending her husband for trip.

I'll bet you see a "wrongful termination" suit coming the minute the judge tosses the libel suit out.

[Sue]

Fact: CIA claims Plame was covert by its own definition.

According to Larry Johnson, he was also classified covert. They have 2 types of employee classifications, according to Johnson and Plame, if you noticed in her testimony, overt and covert. Being classified covert means nothing with regards to the IIPA. As Fitzgerald showed you by bringing absolutely no charges against anyone, even though there were, what did Waxman say? 20 different times her name was revealed.

[Pofarmer]

And, one other thing. How would printing that Valerie Wilson(or Plame, whatever) was Joe Wilson's wife, have damaged her "Covert" operations.

You gonna tell me she was running super secret black ops under her real name?

I'm guessing the anwer's not in the talking points.

[Pofarmer]

The fact remains that the agency has never come out and plainly stated her status - which is very telling.

Yep, I wanna see Hayden say it in a forum where he can be questioned on it.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The President could clear this up right now by ordering the CIA or the DoJ to make public the CIA referral to the DoJ regarding the appearance of Plame's name in the Novak column.

If the criminal investigation is over, per Fitzgerald's comments, then the White House is free of its own handcuffs where it pledged to not comment on the matter WHILE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION was in process.

[topsecretk9]

I'll bet you see a "wrongful termination" suit coming the minute the judge tosses the libel suit out.

Hmmm. I bet you are right.

[Sue]

I know this off topic, but WOW....

REPORT: All charges may be dropped as early as tomorrow in Duke Lacrosse rape case, FOXNEWS reports... 'We will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days,' MORE...

via Drudge

[topsecretk9]

The President could clear this up right now by ordering the CIA or the DoJ to make public the CIA referral to the DoJ regarding the appearance of Plame's name in the Novak column.

Gabriel

I've thought this too - as Sue has said as much - but, I wonder if this is a double dare situation, and what the Wilson's want so that they could initiate a Linda Tripp like suit, alleging the Gov't released details via her personal file in order to punish/smear them.

In hindsight, I wonder if this was a goal of theirs and the Gov't won't give her the satisfaction of acknowledging squat about her.

Anyways, it's a thought.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

ts: That's an interesting theory. However, have the Wilson's even filed their civil suit yet?

The Congress could clear this up as well. They could request the CIA's referral and make it public as well.

There are many parties here that could end this debate once and for all. However, I think both sides want this matter to simmer on the hot stove until January 2008.

[sylvia]

"Fine, the CIA considered her to be "covert" as per their own internal classification scheme "

Good catch on detecting the difference between employment covertness and legal covertness last week. Without info from here, I probably would have bought the whole line from the hearing that they were the same. That is almost duplicitous the way the CIA framed that.

It's obvious Plame wasn't covert under the statute as we would have heard it from someone by now. And although Plame said she served overseas, we see from some of the language that "service" overseas means at least over one month, and I think we would have heard about that too if Plame had done that. There is no good reason for the CIA to be vague about this because the cat is out of the bag, and I agree from what I've read here there is no harm in whatever information might be released publicly in declaring her legal status as compared to her employment status.

No, the reason the CIA is not releasing this I think is they are concerned about a lawsuit from Libby. The CIA obviously released wrong information about Plame's status to the Justice Department and Fitz. Fitz can sue the CIA for maybe not malicious intent, but wanton negligence in a damages case. He can also make a case against the prosecutors for "prosecutorial misconduct", a very often successful appeals avenue, for not doing the necessary investigation to ascertain whether any possible crime was committed before they engaged in their investigation. Maybe even malicious prosecution. The truth will come out eventually I hope.

[jeff z]

This is getting absurd. What the @#$& is the CIA that they can trigger and maintain for several years now a massive political crisis by all this cutesy-pie semantics @%&#? And when is someone--and how about Chris Shays? His political niche is perfect for this--going to stand up and demand to know if a crime was committed or not?

[bio mom]

"Politico.com" says Edwards will suspend his campaign, perhaps eventually dropping out completely, due to a return of his wife's cancer.

[sylvia]

Correction - I mean LIBBY can sue the CIA

[sylvia]

The people want to know, if Chris Shays is your congressman, why do you have west coast timestamps on this blog?

[topsecretk9]

have the Wilson's even filed their civil suit yet?

Gabriel: Yes, last year, The defendants have files motions to dismiss and hearings on this is scheduled May 17th.

Making the CIA referral public is a good way. IIRC it mentioned the possible instance of revealing a covert employee AS WELL AS the disclosure of classified material too.

Most believe the classified disclosure relate to Libby and the NIE - I don't though. I believe it related to the multitude of CIA intelligence leaks over a long period of time relating to a certain CIA department, and the leaker became undeniable when a relative of theirs revealed he'd been trading classified with the media.

[sylvia]

Couple this info with the idea that the investigators should have determined FIRST that the President can declassify and did declassify the NIE memo, further making NEITHER of the crimes that they listed in their indictment possible from the beginning.

[sylvia]

"Key point - the CIA referral was for an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information", *not* for an IIPA violation"

Yes but then the prosecutors had to take steps FIRST to figure out if that referral amounted to any probable cause reasons for any particular criminal violations. And if the CIA then gave incorrect or misleading information about Plames status and service to the prosecutors, that does not let the CIA off the hook.

[cathyf]

I was busy posting this on the dead thread because I hadn't seen this one yet...

Arguing about the definition of "covert" with respect to the IIPA, CIA operational practice, or the accounting category of which account Plame was embezzling out of is silly. Fitzgerald is still claiming that Plame's employment by the CIA was "classified." We know the information that appeared in Novak's column came from Richard Armitage, who got it by reading it in the INR report. We know that the person who put it in the INR report got it from the INR staffer who was at the meeting on Feb 19, 2002 where Valerie Plame identified herself as a "CIA managerial type" and identified Joe Wilson as her husband, as a former ambassador, and as the person that the CIA wanted sent to Niger to check out yellowcake intel. We know that Valerie Plame, an agent of the US Government, did not affirmatively protect her employment status at that meeting. Therefore, we know, because of the definition of classified as established in Executive Order 13292, that the information that appeared in Novak's column was not classified. Because the information that appeared in Novak's column, when traced back through the chain of custody to its source, was unclassified on Feb 19, 2002.

The executive order puts the burden upon the government to designate what information is classified and holds harmless any employee who treats information as unclassified if the government never communicated that the information was other than unclassified. When classified information is divulged (in error or otherwise) without its classification designation, the executive order establishes procedures for getting it back under cover, contingent upon whether it is possible. (Information not yet disseminated widely and/or noticed can often be collected up, and recipients notified of its status.) There was a 15-month gap between Valerie Plame disclosing her status to the INR meeting-goer and the INR meeting-goer passing it on in the report that Armitage read and passed on to Woodward, Novak and maybe others. There is no sign that Valerie Plame, the CIA, or any US government employee made any attempt at all to undo the release of "classified" information to the INR staffer at the Feb 19, 2002 meeting. So, according to the laws and regulations of the US government, we must conclude that her employment status was not classified after Feb 19, 2002. Clearly Plame's employment status was classified earlier, and the exact point at which it became unclassified is unclear. But we can conclude with certainty that it was before Feb 20, 2002.

Which Libby's lawyers were not allowed to even argue in Judge Reggie "La-la-la I Can't Hear You" Walton's court.

But I just realized something, "as if for the first time" in Waxman's statement.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

Clinton's Executive Order 12958 was superceded, in March, 2003, by Bush's Executive Order 13292. I looked at that and thought that either it was a simple error, or that this was Waxman and/or Hayden expressing contempt for the president and his authority by pretending that the superceded order was still in effect.

I'm now wondering if this is not a "what the meaning of 'is' is" lie about Plame's status. If, as I claim we can conclude, Valerie Plame's CIA employment was not classified (ignore covert -- she can't be covert if her employment isn't classified) at any time after Feb 19, 2002, then Plame's CIA employment was never classified under EO 13292. If the point at which her employment status became declassified was after Clinton issued EO 12958 on April 17, 1995 (which seems quite plausible), then it is technically absolutely true that "Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958."

[jerry]

Here's my IANAL opinion (the un-Toensing):

Who's to determine if Plame is protected by the IIPA and an investigation should occur? The CIA.

Who's to determine if a prosecution under the IIPA should occur? The DoJ, Fitzgerald in this case.

Who is Toensing? A partisan advocate for Libby, perhaps defending advice she gave to the WH regarding the IIPA (perhaps through an intermediary like Matalin).

Who is Hayden? Well, another traitorous lefty fellow traveler obviously... who appointed him to this position anyway - his wife, his mother?

Send out the right wing smear and fog machines!

[clarice feldman]

How interesting, Cathyf--perhaps Waxman did not make an error but was simply playing games.

[azaghal]

The letter to Conyers is interesting, in that--as in all other references to the referral--it is very general: "unauthorized disclosure of classified information." Note, however, that the referral is for a criminal investigation, but no reference is made to a relevant criminal statute. Note to that CIA says the matter was reviewed by "subject matter experts" prior to the formal referral, presumably to determine whether, in their opinion, a crime had been committed.

If you think back to Fritz's marathon presser, he makes the point that "unauthorized disclosure of classified information" is not a crime per se: the criminal statutes are very specific and difficult to apply, and that was why no criminal charges relating to any supposed "unauthorized disclosure of classified information"--assuming that their had in fact been an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

Now this may seem picky, but if you recall the Sandy Berger situation Sandypants pleaded to a misdemeanor. That means he isn't actually a "criminal" because a misdeameanor is not actually a crime in the strict sense of the word. That's one reason why I'm interested in the referral itself. Did it cite a specific criminal statute--a statute that would allow for criminal penalties, not misdemeanor penalties? There aren't many to choose from, and as Fritz quickly discovered, they are uniformly bad fits for the fact situation surrounding the Novak article: either the required intent is too specific (as in the Espionage Act) or the subject matter doesn't fit (it wasn't signals intelligence, for example).

CIA "subject matter experts" would have known that, of course. So what was the "crime" they wanted DoJ to investigate? "Crimes" are specified by statute--you can't just say, like Peter Sellers as the Fox: I suspect zee, zee, hanky-panky! But maybe they had reason for saying, we think a misdemeanor has occurred. Maybe they really, really wanted a criminal investigation to happen--even if these "subject matter experts" had no real grounds for believing that any known criminal statute applied. So they suggested to DoJ, hey, we suspect some crime, so take a look and see if you can come up with a statute to fit the facts.

DoJ really should not have acted without some better predication than that. You can't have a good faith investigation--to include calling witnesses before a GJ and subpoenaing records by the truckload to determine whether a crime has taken place. No, you have to be able to somehow articulate that there are grounds to at least suspect that a crime has occurred. It can't be an incommunicable feeling, either; it has to be articulable.

Before anyone knew of Armitage's role, it might be considered to be theoretically possible that espionage was somehow involved--that somehow the release of Val's identity was done in order to harm the US and advantage a foreign power. But how do you proceed after that became known? After it became known, it seems to me that the investigation should have been put on hold--no witnesses, no subpoenas until we sort out the legal issues surrounding Armitage's actions, because that will tell us whether or not a crime was committed.

All very strange, n'est pas? And the Admin treated what was taking place--and still does--as a garden variety criminal matter?

[Imust B Crazy]

I don't expect we'll see any clarity re: 00-Val's status any time soon. Nevertheless I think enough dots are being found to make a few connections. While we're all arguing about her undercover and/or covert status, thanks to State's INR memo identifying her as "CIA manager-type" it's becoming clear that was undercover-Val's cover. Revealing her to be a DO employee working under official cover as a CIA manager-type rather than as a field officer under either official or non-official cover.

Hubby Joe's book (or maybe it was David Corn or chatty Larry Johnson) has already told us she was transitioning from DO field operative to some administrative job that most thought was on the overt DI side.

Put that story together with a critical need for more field agents and I think it's fair to assume she was actually filling a DO staff position so a field eligible spook could be freed up to work in the field. That would explain why she was identified in the INR memo as a manager-type and why she didn't hang around the meeting where most (if not all) the participants didn't know she was working as DO operations officer in charge of that joint task force Wilson blabbed about.

So we're left with CIA not wanting to confirm they're using former field agents in these kind of supervisory jobs with covers this thin in order to push more spooks with who knows what kind of covers out into the field. If true, don't expect them to fess up any time soon. They live on ambiguity after all.

Questionable tradecraft, bureaucratic back-stabbing, and political infighting. In other words business as usual in DC that should have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

[Tom Maguire]

The people want to know, if Chris Shays is your congressman, why do you have west coast timestamps on this blog?

The people do not appreciate that I am operating at my technical frontier when I get the coffee brewer working (and some days I don't).

I have a vague (and now repressed) memory of trying to get TypePAd onto East Coast time, but I can't even remember what went wrong.

You'd think it would be easy...

[sylvia]

"You'd think it would be easy..."

I can relate. I'm still marveling over email. But I did think you were this Left coast rightie rebel at first. But I guess you are still a New England rightie rebel, which is still good. I'm kind of used to the pacific times now. Like at night, it kind of makes me feel better because it subconsciously makes me feel I'm not up so late. I don't really like change much anyway as I'm a creature of habit, so might as well keep it the way it is.

[boris]

Valerie Plame identified herself as a "CIA managerial type" and identified Joe Wilson as her husband

Yes, clearly Valerie revealed that Joe's wife was CIA without designation that information was classified.

So CIA officials, Valerie Wilson, Bill Harlow, Robert Grenier, and Schmall all released this fact without required designation as classified.

Further, no serious attempt was made to reclassify that fact. So who perpetrated this FUBAR if there was a FUBAR?

CIA.

[boris]

was simply playing games

Ya think?

[Tom Maguire]

Here's my IANAL opinion (the un-Toensing):

Who's to determine if Plame is protected by the IIPA and an investigation should occur? The CIA.

Who's to determine if a prosecution under the IIPA should occur? The DoJ, Fitzgerald in this case.

Dare we draw an inference from the fact that no leakers were charged?

As to the idea that the CIA is sole judge of Ms.Plame's IIPA status, well, no - eventually a court would decide. But in fact, we have seen the CIA step away from that question in both the referral and Hayden's statement for Waxman - when can we safely infer that they really don't want to say she was covert as per the statute?

DoJ really should not have acted without some better predication than that. You can't have a good faith investigation--to include calling witnesses before a GJ and subpoenaing records by the truckload to determine whether a crime has taken place.

Well, that may be your view, but Fitzgerald blew a lot of smoke at that in his Oct 2005 presser - we don't investigate statutes, we investigate facts, or some such tripe.

Obviously, a proper investigation requires the gathering of basic facts. But at some point, one must sit down and figure what statutes are in play and what facts/evidence are needed to charge a crime and gain a conviction under the statutes.

The idea that such a review would occur *after* the facts are in is silly - what, for example, if the law required that the alleged perp be over six feet tall - it would be a bit silly to go out and re-interview everyone just to get their height, when that could have been done at the outset.

Here is Fitzgerald:

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.

FITZGERALD: 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.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

Yeah, yeah. The obstruction charge lets Libs keep hope alive, but I can't imagine what Libby might realistically have said that would have led to criminal charges against him, Cheney, or anyone else.

[azaghal]

"But maybe they had reason for NOT saying, we think a misdemeanor has occurred."

[sylvia]

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

Yeah and part of the "facts" are was Plame covert or not? Using his bank example, you don't start an investigation into missing money and start putting all the employees under oath before you even ask the bank if the money is actually "missing", and not just say, some clerical error. You take reasonable steps to investigate whether there actually is a crime. For instance, it is also very hard to get murder charges on a suspect if no body is found. Why? Because they want to make sure the person is actually dead first. In this case, Fitz should have waited for the "body" first.

[azaghal]

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.

Yes, I do truly luv that, that...tripe, or BS, or...

Picture the eager investigator. He walks into the office, has his first cup of coffee; nothing much going on so he says to himself: hey, I think I'll gather some facts and see if a crime has occurred. Novak had an interesting column the other day about Superspy Val. David Corn and Joe Wilson say a crime occurred--they say the IIPA was violated, but CIA won't touch that one with a ten foot pole, just keep doing their dance of a thousand veils or something. The say they think a crime occurred, but they're being amazingly coy about identifying any criminal statute that comes close to the facts. Well, I think I'll go with Corn and Wilson and start hauling WH officials before a GJ and subpoenaing all their records--it's all just facts, we'll worry about a violation later.

Let me guarantee something: if the FBI started acting in that manner on a regular basis a stop would be put to it instanter if not sooner.

Have any other at least colorable violations of law occurred in this whole sorry charade? You bet your sweet ass--colorable violations aplenty have occurred! I mean, one hardly knows where to start! How much fact collecting occurred with regard to them? Well, conservative bloggers have done quite a bit, but as for those investigators who are out there collecting facts just in case they find a violation somewhere...

Don't make me laugh.

[jeff z]

Tom, re your 9:32 am post:

So let me get Fitz's reasoning straight: The bank calls him up and says $1M is missing. His agents go down and investigate, and ask the bankers if they think the money was stolen or embezzled. The bankers won't say one way or another. Soon enough, the agents find out that if a crime was committed (the bankers still won't say), it was done by a man named, say, Armitage. They report back to Fitz, who decides not to pursue investigating if a crime was committed or not, nor to go after this Armitage person, but to instead spend two years and millions of dollars investigating a bunch of other people, who couldn't have committed a crime which seemd to never have occured? What am I missing here?

[cathyf]

But there was no attempt at all to collect facts. We know that the information that appeared in Novak's column had a chain of custody back through Armitage, through the INR and through to Valerie Plame

1) because the SSCI reported the chain from the INR report to Plame, and

2) because JMHanes painstakingly used tracings of MS-Word formatted names substituted into the redacted-out holes in Fitzgerald's coverupcourt filings to show that Armitage was the conduit between the INR report and Novak.

Batting your eyelashes demurly and saying that an investigation is "just the facts ma'am" is bullshit. The Comey letter specified "classified information." Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation was unclassified long before anyone in the White House or the Vice President's office knew anything about it. The NIE was declassified before Libby attempted (unsuccessfully, because reporters are lying partisan scumbags) to use it to debunk Joe Wilson's lies.

How can you have an investigation of unauthorized release of classified information without first investigating if any of the information that was released was in fact classified?

[Spartacvs]

I think I pointed this out to you before Tom, but I'll try again.

Since no one seems to be facing prosecution under the IIPA for leaking Plame's name why would a Congressional investigation into the matter restrict the definition of covert to that in the IIPA. Makes no sense, the IIPA definition is irrelevant.

Senior members of the Bush Administration have been implicated by testimony in the Libby trial, in passing around her name and CIA status in the period prior to Novak's article. The IIPA legislation may not provide a means of bringing a criminal prosecution of these people because of the restrictive definition of covert under that statute, though more likely because Fitzgerald couldn't prove other aspects and requirements of the act. But that doesn't prevent Congress from illuminating the fact that Senior Bush Administration officials were at best cavalier with classified information that identified a covert CIA officer and at worst purposefully driven by the desire to smear her husband, though not of course apparently illegally.

[ErnestAbe]

The Comey letter specified "classified information." Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation was unclassified long before anyone in the White House or the Vice President's office knew anything about it.

That's B.S.

[sylvia]

"How can you have an investigation of unauthorized release of classified information without first investigating if any of the information that was released was in fact classified?"

Right on.

[clarice feldman]

cathyf, that's right. There never was a logical defense to Fitz' decision to proceed.

[cathyf]

...was simply playing games...

Well, no, that's my point. I thought this was Waxman and/or Hayden playing games, getting in a little dig dissing the president by pretending that his March, 2003 executive order didn't mean anything. This is more like obstruction of justice. (Unless, of course, you mean the sarcastic sense of playing the Go To Jail Obstruction of Justice Game.)

[Lew Clark]

And why are you prosecuting the recipients of the classified information and not the releasers. It was CIA who let the Plame cat out of the bag. Armitage, Martin, Cheney, Rove, etc., etc, were just like Novak. They received the stolen goods, they didn't steal them. Now, a case could be made for conspiracy, if it could be proved that they knew they were stolen. But the case seems to prove that none of them knew the goods were stolen. So why aren't the robbers, CIA, being prosecuted.
Because "NO ONE ST0LE NOTHING". Fitzgerald threw Libby in prison because he, like many others (who were not indicted), couldn't remember exactly what color of tie he was wearing on the day the bank was "not robbed".

[Joe Gloor]

Do any of you 'Big Brains' know what the difference is between Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292?
I ask because 1) I'm not in a position to actually research the EOs myself
And 2) Could the revelation of Val Plame's name be a violation of one and not the other?
And 3) IANAL

[MikeS]

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

Even after Fitz explained it I still don’t get it.
Didn’t anyone on Fitzgerald’s team say, “I have some reservations about our star witness?”

Anyone in the U.S. who was remotely interested in the investigation knew Andrea Mitchell claimed lots of reporters knew about Valerie. (though she did later recant).

The investigators also knew that David Gregory knew.

I’m no Sherlock Holmes but, wouldn’t someone who had “set out to gather the facts” want to quiz Gregory and Mitchell on the subject?

[cathyf]

The Comey letter specified "classified information." Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation was unclassified long before anyone in the White House or the Vice President's office knew anything about it.

That's B.S.

You have evidence that someone in the White House or the Vice President's office knew about Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation before Feb 19, 2002?

Put up or shut up.

(Or maybe you are playing "meaning of 'is' is" games. I suppose it's not impossible that somebody in the Clinton WH and/or the Gore OVP knew who their former colleague Joe Wilson was sleeping with back in the days that she really was covert. I take back the generic "the White House or the Vice President's office" and substitute "the Bush White House or the Cheney OVP.")

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...Senior Bush Administration officials were at best cavalier with classified information that identified a covert CIA officer and at worst purposefully driven by the desire to smear her husband...'

Not established by evidence at the Libby trial.

When asked about the ex-ambassador starring in the Kristoff column, the CIA's story was that it was Joe Wilson, his wife worked at the Agency and she had something to do with his being sent to Africa. The info about Valerie wasn't dug up from some secret cache of info about their spooks by Bush Admin Officials. It was freely and openly given out by the CIA.

[Cecil Turner]

The IIPA legislation may not provide a means of bringing a criminal prosecution of these people because of the restrictive definition of covert under that statute . . .

Nope, that's not the main problem. The problem is that nobody in the Administration knew her status was classified. Per Tatel:

What’s more, if Libby mentioned Plame’s covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable.

[Spartacvs]

And why are you prosecuting the recipients of the classified information and not the releasers.

Armitage, Martin, Cheney, Rove, etc. are public servants who would appear to be both recipients and releasers, Novak is not. Also it would seem they did not ultimately lie to investigators or a grand jury about their involvement. Your best hope for Libby remains a pardon from the most unpopular and compromised President since Nixon, as he sneaks out the back door.

[boris]

That's B.S.

The executive order puts the burden upon the government to designate what information is classified and holds harmless any employee who treats information as unclassified if the government never communicated that the information was other than unclassified.

Those who wish to claim that information remains "classified" until it is officially declassified no matter how it is disclosed, need to read that paragraph for comprehension.

In this case, the people at risk for "never communicated that the information was other than unclassified" are Valerie Wilson, Bill Harlow, Robert Grenier, and Schmall who all released the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA without required designation as classified.

If it were classified to begin with.

So either it was not classified in the first place OR any employee who treats such information as unclassified is held harmless.

[ErnestAbe]

cathyf, there is no question that Plame was a covert officer by the CIA's definition, and therefore her status was classified.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

[Will]

If Fitzgerald was smart enough to convict Libby on 4 of 5 counts of a perjury trap then he has to be smart enought to conclude that Plame was not covert as defined by the act. Therefore Armitage and Novak walk. I think Ari Fleisher could also have been indicted but he was given immunity for some reason. I dont see where Rove and Cheney are culpable if the others are not. Now I see why Dr. Daniel at SMU assigned "Bleak House". What the hell was this ever about?

Waxman and the Dems need to govern not promote their friends and associates books and movies.

What a country?

[topsecretk9]

Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 22, 2007 at 01:32

LOL, and notice that EA has NOTHING to support his facts.

[boris]

and therefore her status was classified

When government officials of the CIA, Valerie Wilson, Bill Harlow, Robert Grenier, and Schmall released the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA without required designation as classified, treating that information as "unclassified" is held harmless.

[Spartacvs]

It was freely and openly given out by the CIA.

Only at the confirmation stage when Novak already had his story leaked to him by Senior Bush Administration officials. Actualy I'm not entirely convinced that Novak either needed or wanted confirmation from CIA since he had Rove, but one thing is clear in that the CIA asked him not to print. Did Novak communicate to Rove or Armitage that the CIA had asked him not to print and do you believe that Rove/Armitage should have supported the CIA given this knowledge. I think we can accurately predict that Armitage would have, but Rove that's another matter.

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!" WS. 1595

[cathyf]

Do any of you 'Big Brains' know what the difference is between Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292?

Not claiming any big braindom, but the biggest difference is that the vice president has the same authority as the president to declassify stuff. (Note that a big part of the skulking around by the WH and OVP wrt Wilson was that the president and vice president made a managerial decision not to go over Tenet's head and just declassify everything that would prove that Wilson was lying. They wanted Tenet and the CIA to take responsibility for sending him and to get out in the lead in refuting his lies. This went on for almost a month, and then Cheney decided that they would declassify the relevant portions of the NIE to the NYT in order to force the CIA to act. You can certainly argue about the wisdom of doing this, and Judy "Ms Run Amuck" Miller and the NYT turned out to be a disasterous choice, but you can't argue that they had the authority to do it. And, as is clear from the legal filings which Fitzgerald violated grand jury testimony to give us, Cheney decided not to test the new 13292 authority and had Bush declassify it according to the 12958 procedure.)

The other changes I think were minor technical changes having to do with narrowing somewhat the reach of automatic declassification. (Most things are declassified automatically after 25 years because few things still qualify as secret after that long.) None of that would have anything to do with Plame.

I have always maintained that Plame's CIA affiliation could not be classified because it would be prohibited by section 1.7 (a) (1), (2), and (4). The language in that section is identical between 12958 and 13292, the only difference is that it's in section 1.8 in 12958. (I once traced that language back through the ancestry of the EO to the one that Truman issued in 1953 because I was curious to see if it was original. It's not, but it appears pretty early -- in the 60's IIRC.)

[MikeS]

EA: Plame was a covert officer by the CIA's definition

Does this mean that you finally agree that Plame was not 'covert' by any applicable legal definition?

Can we move on now to the word 'classified'?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

For God's sake!

Someone kick Bush in the ass and tell him to freaking settle this nonsense once and for all.

We've been screwing around about this stupid subject for 4 frigging years now.

I really don't want to talking about this same idiot nonsense in 20 years when I'm 63.

[boris]

is clear in that the CIA asked him not to print

Making it bold doesn't make it clear. They requested that Novak not use her name.

They did not apparently request that not disclose that Wilson's wife was CIA. In fact Harlow confirmed that fact.

harlow then claims he used the strongest possible terms without revealing classified information.

Say what? He can't tell Novak that Wilson's wife being CIA was classified because her being classified was classified information?

Hello, can somebody get colonel Flag on the phone to explaing this to us?

[cathyf]

It was freely and openly given out by the CIA.

Only at the confirmation stage when Novak already had his story leaked to him by Senior Bush Administration officials.

Novak had his story leaked to him by Senior Bush Administration officials before Feb 19, 2002?!?!?

C'mon, what are you smoking, and it's impolite not to at least offer to share!

[Joe Gloor]

Ed - you're just a kid - when you're 63 you'll be looking for some other 'idiot nonsense' to talk about...

Thanks - cathyf - you're 'Big Brain' in my book.

[James Malcolm]

Plame said (I heard it during her performance) that a covert agent (secret spy) was someone whose connection to the CIA was undetectable. Obviously when working overseas she was paid by a dummy or real company and noone was the wiser about the CIA...and she used her name. Correct? For years she has worked at Langley. Her secretary knows her name. All the others in the office know she's Valerie Wilson (Maiden name in Who's Who)and her husband is an ex-ambassador. What does her check say when she's paid? Where is it deposited? It seems clear that she can't be walking around the CIA building for five years and still maintain that she has the deep cover of a spy with no discernable connection to the CIA. On its face she's not covert in the sense she alleges - that people would die if her CIA connection were known. In that case she wouldn't be in that building using the name she's always used. What does her check say on the top it? Does it go into a bank where a clerk could see her name and her CIA connection? Just wondering. Thank you.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Ed - you're just a kid - when you're 63 you'll be looking for some other 'idiot nonsense' to talk about...

Frankly I'm almost willing to bet money that we'll still be debating whether or not Plame was covert.

[cathyf]

James Malcolm, while she may have said "a covert agent (secret spy) was someone whose connection to the CIA was undetectable," that's overstating the case. If a covert agent goes to an inter-agency meeting and introduces herself as from the CIA and the guy with her as her husband, who is an ex-ambassador, who the CIA is sending to Niger, then in order for "the government" to be "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her affiliation to the CIA, "the government" has to in some way shape or form actually inform the participants at the meeting that this information about her working for the CIA is classified.

The reason that we know that the government was not "taking affirmative actions to conceal" Plame's affiliation with the CIA is that they didn't. And the information that they failed to conceal at that exact meeting is the information that ended up in the newspaper, relayed to the newspaper reporter from a person at that exact meeting.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

cathyf: The agency may have been trying to conceal her status at the CIA. But was Valerie trying to conceal her status at the CIA?

Valerie drove herself to Langley everyday. This means SHE WAS NOT TRYING TO CONCEAL HER STATUS AT THE CIA.

Technically, both statements can be true. The CIA was protecting her status and Valerie was not protecting her status.

[MikeS]

I'm concerned that Plame was moving into a supervisory position where she would be responsible for the protection of other 'covert officer's' identities.

Seems that she had either not learned or had forgotten the most basic principles of secret agent-ness.

[Seixon]

According to Waxman, Plame was GS-14, and had a senior management position.

Larry Johnson said in July 2005 that she was GS-13 and "mid-level".

*Plays MadTV jingle for Lowering Expectations*

[cathyf]

Nah, the agency wasn't attempting to conceal her status, either. If they were trying to conceal her status, they would have sent some other non-covert CIA employee to the meeting to introduce Joe Wilson to the INR guy and the other people at the meeting. Maybe somebody like the crybaby whose feelings were hurt that like ya know somebody in the OVP like wanted some ya know like intelligence. Or the hallway eavesdropping guy.

None of those people at that meeting had any "need to know" (<<== notice technical term there) that the ex-ambassador who was going to Niger to check out the yellowcake intel had any personal relationship with anyone at the CIA. If they hadn't been told, they never would have wondered about it. The CIA could have picked a dozen different ways to introduce Joe Wilson to the committee without them getting the slightest hint of Plame's involvement with either him or with the CIA.

Or the agency would have sent around a memo to the meeting participants at some point in the 15 months between Valerie's big blab and when the INR guy shared the blab with his State Department superiors. If it was a simple oversight that Plame forgot to tell the folks at the meeting that her CIA affiliation was classified and what the classification was, there was, in fact, ample time to get that horse back into the barn and close and lock the barn door behind it. The CIA didn't bother. QED -- the information wasn't classified.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'"It was freely and openly given out by the CIA."

'Only at the confirmation stage when Novak already had his story leaked to him by Senior Bush Administration officials.'

Did you notice I referenced the Kristoff column?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

cathyf: I don't think the CIA was trying to protect Valerie's status either. If they were, why was Bill Harlow confirming to Novak that Valerie worked for the CIA?

The CIA is giving this story legs. The White House is letting it happen.

[glass]

Do any of you 'Big Brains' know what the difference is between Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292?
I ask because 1) I'm not in a position to actually research the EOs myself
And 2) Could the revelation of Val Plame's name be a violation of one and not the other?
And 3) IANAL

Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 22, 2007 at 01:17 PM
This is where a quote from and old TV Star Trek episode may be appropriate: "Captain (Clarice, Tom) your logic is impeccable--we are in grave danger"
Since according to the left's reasoning--President Bush is not a legitimate leader--his executive order does not hold up.
MSM is bandying about a "constitution crisis" over the AG firings-- which would be a nothing compared to a showdow over Clinton's EO and Bush's EO.

[Tom]

Why is everybody still so obsessed with this?

[Spartacvs]

Did you notice I referenced the Kristoff column?

What did Kristoff write about Plame's status?

[Lew Clark]

Abdul: Hey Mohammad, I see you've made a number of phone calls to CIA headquarters. Who were you talking to?

Mohammad: Valerie Plame, she's an Energy Analyst for Brewster Jennings. She has no connection to the CIA and can be trusted.

Abdul: And what did you tell her?

Mohammad: Everything about our nuclear weapons program here in Iran. Because she's a private citizen energy analyst with no connection to the CIA and is very interested and supportive of our efforts.

Abdul: Then why is her office at CIA headquarters?

Mohammad: Cheaper office space than in Boston.

Abdul: Oh, ok. But make sure none of those real CIA people are listening, because they hate us and will blow up our nuclear weapons stuff.

Mohammad: No problem, she lowers the "cone of silence" when she speaks to me.

Abdul: Okey Dokey.

Abdul: Bob Novak says she's a CIA Operative! Karl Rove told him so!

Mohammad: We're screwed!

[Imust B Crazy]

cathyf: It looks more like DO's CPD group was sloppy and stupid and public affairs (Harlow) confirmed she was CIA BEFORE finding out her duties were classified. He then did a crappy job of walking back his confirmation and somebody (Harlow or higher) decided that getting Tenet or his deputy to convince Novak not to publish would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

You may be right about her status but don't forget hubby Joe couldn't get through the main gate without being on the visitor list and past the turnstiles inside without someone from the office/organization he was visiting to escort him to the secure area/conference room of the meeting.

In this case it appears his sponsor/escort was 00-Val, who was known to others in the room as an unclassified "managerial type" rather than the team leader for CPD's JTF-Iraq.

INR's rep who put her name in the "how the hell did this happen" memo inadvertently caused all of this. If he knew her status was sensitive he tried to obscure it by identifying her by her official cover status as a managerial type. If he didn't know then his honest note-taking and her foolish involvement as Joe's sponsor/escort got memorialized in the memo that went to Grossman and then came out of Armitage and Ari's mouths leading to her later connection with Joe's mission to "stir things up" and see if any new information on the uranium trade develops.

So why would Fitz go forward knowing this? Because he seemed positive that the recipients of the President's Daily Brief "should have known" she was in the DO side of CIA where all employees are under some kind of cover (official/nonofficial).

I continue to believe questionable tradecraft, bureaucratic back-stabbing, political infighting together with an overzealous prosecutor and you get the political lynching we're witnessing.

You can't fix this kind of foul-up with prosecutors and grand juries you can only fix this stuff with serious internal investigations that find root cause and make the necessary changes.

[Joe Gloor]

Tom - Why is everybody still so obsessed with this?
It's just such an F-ing travesty of justice.
It's so obviously a political witch-hunt by the Democrats that it makes one wonder when American's will "rise up, go to the Halls of Congress and lynch those crazy bastards." (or as close a quote as I can remember from some actor's diatribe regarding the Clinton impeachment)

[topsecretk9]

According to Waxman, Plame was GS-14, and had a senior management position.

Larry Johnson said in July 2005 that she was GS-13 and "mid-level".

*Plays MadTV jingle for Lowering Expectations*

Posted by: Seixon | March 22, 2007 at 02:45 PM

Hmmm. You may be on to something Seixon. Senior management position is in the position to "authorize" and plan a trip. Anyhow, it would be interesting to know what the CIA did know before they planned the mission - this might be what they'd prefer not get into.

[MikeS]

Did Armitage choose who he would leak to (Woodward and Novak)? Would he leak to anyone who asked? Did he keep a list of who he leaked to and who he snubbed? Why did he keep his leak to Woodward (a month earlier than Novak) a secret so long?

[PeterUK]

"So why would Fitz go forward knowing this?"

Because the man is a trophy hunter,he was given a ticket for the biggest game in town.

[Imust B Crazy]

He came clean only when Novak's description of his source as "no partisan gunslinger" tipped him off he better self report and he only fessed up to the Woodward leak when Woodward told him he better report it before Woodward tesfified to the Grand Jury as I recall.

If these two reporters weren't looking out for him he'd still be silent.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'"Did you notice I referenced the Kristoff column?"

'What did Kristoff write about Plame's status?'

You're either not very bright, or are hoping I am. Kristoff's column was two months before Novak found out. Meaning you were wrong to say:

'Only at the confirmation stage when Novak already had his story leaked to him by Senior Bush Administration officials.'

[Cecil Turner]

Larry Johnson said in July 2005 that she was GS-13 and "mid-level".

GS-13 or 14 (and probably 15) would all qualify as "mid-level" IMO. "Senior" would be "Senior Executive Service" (SES) ES 1-5.

[danking70]

I'm wondering when Novak is going to write about the grilling Russert gave him on MTP for not even trying to protect his sources.

[Tom]

Joe Gloor: "It's just such an F-ing travesty of justice."

Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame. He was convicted of lying.

[Tom]

PeterUK,
About Fitz: "Because the man is a trophy hunter,he was given a ticket for the biggest game in town"

He was appointed by Bush, he's a Republican, and if Libby had the brains to tell the truth in the first place he would have never been charged. (He's also nailed any number of Democrats.)

Is there something wrong with having the integrity to do the job you're paid to do??

[Sue]

he's a Republican,

Hmmm...his friends claim he is apolitical.

[lurker]

Thought he was a democrat years before? Besides, he did not intentionally lie and there was no crime committed.

[topsecretk9]

For those poll loving lefties:

Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose leaked identity unleashed a Special Prosecutor and led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and obstructing justice, is viewed favorably by 34% of American voters. Thirty-two percent (32%) have an unfavorable view while 34% have no opinion. These figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Plame and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view (see crosstabs).

[judith]

Years ago I worked for the IRS-District counsel (the lawyers for the IRS). I received a security clearance and was told I was handling "classified" info, i.e., it had to be secured either by my physical presence or locked up at all times. These instructions were frequently repeated, files were checked, papers shredded, everything under lock and key when I was not present, and everyone had to have a security clearance. If a lowly clerk in the IRS has all this checking of security, being told what we could and could not do (we could not participate in any political campaigns), what the heck was going on with plame, she did not know her status? She made herself a public figure and became involved in political campaigns...gee, maybe I should be an agent...it sounds a lot simpler than a clerk for the IRS!

[Tom]

Sue,
Being "apolitical" or not wanting to discuss political affiliations is not uncommon with prosecuting attorneys, but literally every appointment he's received has been initiated and carried out by Republicans.

Think what you want, but the man has integrity and appears to be honest to the core.

[topsecretk9]

gee, maybe I should be an agent...it sounds a lot simpler than a clerk for the IRS!

LOL.

[Tom]

Lurker: "Besides, he did not intentionally lie and there was no crime committed.'

You mean, except for the 4 felony convictions for lying, etc?
(And I don't think "not intentionally" falls into the category of a solid defense.)

What is it you don't understand?

[PeterUK]

"Is there something wrong with having the integrity to do the job you're paid to do??"

Not at all,but Fitzgerald's presser and his closing rebuttal,in the face of the Judges decision,put his integrity in question.
Read it,it is all here,one of the guides will explain the big words and legal niceties.

[boris]

One conviction was for testifying he said something to Cooper that Cooper testified he didn't say. However Cooper's notes contain words and phrases identical to Libby's testimony that Cooper did not testify to.

IOW Cooper's testimony was provably wrong. Libby's testimony was provably accurate. The jury convicted on the charge anyway which discredits them and Fitz.

[MikeS]

boris
Please don't forget the dishonest 'star' witness with a breathtakingly bad memory.

[Tom]

Libby was convicted by a jury who heard every word of testimony, from BOTH sides.

How many here were in the courtroom. How many were on the jury?

And, as we ALL know or at least suspect...Libby will be pardoned anyway.

[BarbaraS]

Libby's case was a political witch hunt. Fitzgerald is a protege of Chuck Shumer and best friends with James Comey, his former USA in SDNY and boss, who assigned him the job of special prosecutor. Chuck Shumer has an iron hand on the SDNY prosecutor's office and has for years. Chuck Shumer has recommended James Comey as the next AG if Gonzales resigns. How much more to you want to know about Fitzgerald's apolitical stance. Chuck Shumer has guided this whole debacle from beginning to end. I would not be surprised if he was not one or even the only jurist that Reggie Walton consulted when he could not make a decision during the trial. Too many rulings were in the prosecutor's favor. He kept saying that this or that was not fair to the prosecution. I thought the defendant deserved a fair trial not the prosecution.

When Fitzgerald did his rebuttal about Plame's covert position in defiance of Walton's explicit ruling and Walton did nothing much in reprisal, I knew this whole thing was a set up. No, I'll correct that, I knew from the beginning that the indictment of Libby was a sop thrown to the democrats because Fitzgerald could not come up with anything stronger.

And if anybody had a brain cell in their heads they would know that Bush knows this was a perjury trap and does not want any other of his staff to fall into this trap the democrats want to spring. How can they defend themselves if the dems can find someone, anyone, to refute their testimony like they did Libby's? His case was a "he said, he said" situation and not even much of that either.

[azaghal]

Tissue of non sequiturs:

He was appointed by Bush, he's a Republican

Norm Mineta is a Democrat and was reappointed by Bush--don't ask me why.

Is there something wrong with having the integrity to do the job you're paid to do?

There is nothing wrong with doing one's job with integrity. Getting convictions is not necessarily the job of a prosecutor. A prosecutor is first and foremost an officer of the court and has a paramount duty to see that justice is done. Do all prosecutors act that way? The question answers itself.

literally every appointment he's received has been initiated and carried out by Republicans.

Think what you want, but the man has integrity and appears to be honest to the core.

Every election Nixon and Agnew won were as Republicans. Your point is...?

You mean, except for the 4 felony convictions for lying, etc?
(And I don't think "not intentionally" falls into the category of a solid defense.)

What is it you don't understand?

In fact "intentionally" is a necessary element of perjury, or "lying" as you call. Making an unintentionally untrue statement is called making a mistake, not lying. A fine country this would be if making a mistake were a criminal offense--bonehead.