Thoughts on the Libby Indictment:
All things considered, the Libby indictment handed down today was narrower than I expected. As I read it, all five of the counts come down to Libby's lying to investigators and the grand jury about his contacts with the press. The counts seem pretty clearly valid and tight on the law, although none go to the substantive offense for which Libby was investigated.
The nature of the counts sheds some light on what we have seen in the investigation for the last two years. In particular, Fitzgerald presumably was focused on getting the testimony of Cooper and Miller because Libby told investigators and the grand jury that he hadn't leaked anything to them; Fitzgerald needed their testimony to prove that false. On an entirely speculative front, Miller and Cooper might have refused to testify because they knew Libby had lied to investigators and the grand jury, and therefore knew that their testimony would directly contradict Libby's and lead to obtstruction and perjury charges. That might explain Judith Miller's reticence to believe that Libby had released her from her duty of confidentiality: Why on earth would Libby volunteer to let Miller hand over evidence that would lead to his felony conviction?
Finally, it seems to me that Fitzgerald is being pretty careful here. He has Libby in what appears to be a direct lie to investigators and the grand jury, and he's not reaching for more. At least with Libby. At least for now.
The nature of the counts sheds some light on what we have seen in the investigation for the last two years. In particular, Fitzgerald presumably was focused on getting the testimony of Cooper and Miller because Libby told investigators and the grand jury that he hadn't leaked anything to them; Fitzgerald needed their testimony to prove that false. On an entirely speculative front, Miller and Cooper might have refused to testify because they knew Libby had lied to investigators and the grand jury, and therefore knew that their testimony would directly contradict Libby's and lead to obtstruction and perjury charges. That might explain Judith Miller's reticence to believe that Libby had released her from her duty of confidentiality: Why on earth would Libby volunteer to let Miller hand over evidence that would lead to his felony conviction?
Finally, it seems to me that Fitzgerald is being pretty careful here. He has Libby in what appears to be a direct lie to investigators and the grand jury, and he's not reaching for more. At least with Libby. At least for now.
As Yglesias concedes, you can't take this as proof that Libby knew Plame was covert, but it certainly doesn't look good.
And hey, a lollipop to the first commenter who provides/links a glossary of "Principal Deputy," "Official A," etc.
If she is not a covert agent, it bothers me to think that a prosecutor would conduct an investigation seemingly designed to catch people lying about something that isn't a crime--if that is the actual outcome.
Once again, senior officials have failed to realize that it is not mistakes that get you in trouble, but attempts to cover up those mistakes. If Mr. Libby did in fact attempt to cover his tracks, shame on him for his lies.
As an outsider, the whole process seems a little odd to me.
1) A prosecutor mounts an investigation that drags on for years. I'm not excusing anyone here, but it seems to me that, if you bring in witnesses multiple times over that span, you surely will eventually get someone to say something contradictory, or remember something differently, etc.
2) At the end of it all, the only indictments the prosecutor comes up with are ones that directly result from the process of the investigation itself. In other words, if there had been no investigation, there would have been no crime.
I'm sure all you lawyer types can reasonable explain this, but just so you know, it strikes some of us laymen as pretty ... what's the word? Paradoxical?
- AJ
If the indictments are true (as Fitzgerald points out, the presumption of innocence must be with Libby), then Libby did not simply misremember or omit some trivial detail: he engaged in an intentional and orchestrated attempt to decieve the investigation into believing that he had nothing to do with leaking the information. Whether the leak was illegal or not, what Libby is alleged to have done clearly is illegal. In order for the rule of law to work, we can't allow people to intentionally and systematically mislead grand juries and investigators.
JF, during the press conference, Fitzgerald detailed the many, many pieces of evidence that Libby knew about Valerie Plame's identity via government sources and had discussed her status with various officals. This seems to contradict his testimony to the grand jury. Of course, the facts here are for a trial judge or jury to decide, but if the indictment is true, he was clearly acting to obstruct the investigation.
As a conservative Republican who treasures the rule of law and the notion that our officials aren't above it, I was very happy with what I heard from Fitzgerald during the broadcast. Especially with his polite, determined refusal to gossip about details unrelated to the indictments.
Why is this appropriate? Because the very act of trying to tamper with evidence is a serious offense. To protect the process is vital, if we are to ever have any confidence in it.
Or, to put it another way, suppose Fitzgerald had said, "Well, we've investigated but due to all of the witnesses constantly lying and misleading us we can't tell what happened. Maybe nobody leaked anything, mabye the President orchestrated a campaign of mass disinformation. We can't tell because everyone changes their story from minute to minute." Wouldn't you be outraged at the behavior of these witnesses? Doesn't this sound like something you'd see in the Third World were the law is regularly trampled upon by those in power?
The rule of law demands that all of those involved submit to the law and to due process. For anyone to believe that their position, their cause, or their virtue gives them the right to rewrite the law on the fly is simply unacceptable.
I think your complaint is best directed at the President, who ordered that a special prosecutor (or whatever Fitz's title is) be appointed.
We can guess that it was Official A :-)
Fox News is already suggesting we look at what exactly Libby lied about, as if to say, if the lie was on some tangental issue, maybe it's not such a big deal.
A lie's a lie in my book... EJ Dionne noted that "A process that was about "the rule of law" when Democrats were in power is suddenly an outrage now that it's Republicans who are being held accountable."
Don't know. Maybe they questioned Libby early in the process and only found out later. Could also be that Libby refused to testify about the content of those meetings (under national security, etc.) but other officials were more flexible. Libby's behavior mystifies me, though perhaps it shouldn't. The Clintonistas did much the same back in the early days of those scandals too. Sigh. One day our mandarins will learn that the cover-up is as deadly as the offense.
Exactly. The GJ was convened to determine who leaked that information. Libby apparently did his best to stop the grand jury from finding out who did. If that's not important, then why bother having grand juries at all?
I think it's at least reasonable to wonder if both Libby and Rove (who isn't indicted, but lied publicly about his involvement) did so in order to
keep the story out of the re-election.
Not even remotely accurate. The CIA -- after an internal investigation -- referred the matter to the Department of Justice. (That is your FIRST clue that Plame was, in fact, undercover.).
The Department of Justice went to investigate, but there was a potential for a major conflict of interest, and so Ashcroft turned the matter over to his Number 2 guy, who appointed Fitzgeral (a US Attorney with a very solid reputation) to investigate the matter.
Because of the potential for conflicts of interest, Fitzgerald was given a relatively wide mandate and little oversight -- this was to ensure that no claim that the investigation was tampered with by officials in the executive branch.
Judging from the press conference, Fitzgerald continues to play his cards very close to his vest. I would not be surprised at all to find more indictments forthcoming. One has to cut through the BS (spelled out in the 5 felony indictments) before one can get to the heart of the matter.
Obviously, if Fitzgerald's trying to figure out where info about Plame came from, and Libby's lying about it, that drags out the investigation.
As for "covert," is this a formal agency designation? Whether she's covert under the IIPA might be a jury question. And see comment # 1 above.
This is reaching: Actually, based on my experiences in DC, it is SOP for government agencies to refer to the DOJ anything that might - even by the wildest stretch - involve a violation of their prerogatives. Just another aspect of the bureaucratic mind-set. Certainly nothing that would lead one to assume that there was outrage or even upset over this incident among non-partisan employees of the CIA.
(2) You can blow an operative's cover without violating the IIPA.
Unless someone can refute one of those two statements, all this "but was she covert?" stuff sounds like misdirection to me.
Can anyone help a new visitor to the site out? Thanks.
That said, why, after two years, do we not know more about what Valerie Plame's actual status was? Why does it seem to be addressed by innuendo and assumption?
And, if Anderson is correct that her status under the IIPA is a jury question--why is the evidence supporting an affirmative answer not detailed in the indictment? Why was the issue of her status not laid out in the "matters being considered by the Grand Jury" part of the indictment? Is that whole issue irrelevant to this indictment?
I prefer it when prosecutions of people for lying and obstruction are associated with actual underlying crimes.
I have done a few GJs in my time. I remember one witness who, while not the subject of the investigation, refused to answer several of my questions. Not much I could do about it.
This indictment certainly passes the smell test for me. Just as it was pretty obvious that the DeLay indictment didn't pass the smell test. As a dyed in the wool party hack I want corrupt or unethical Republicans smoked out of office even more than I want to see shady Democrats pursued. The fastest way back to a Democratic Congress would be to look the other way at transgressions like these. And I think the standard of co-operation the Administration set of requiring confidentiality waivers, and full co-operation with Fitzgerald reflects that realization. Its just too bad Libby didn't go along with the plan.
If I heard him right, Fitzgerald said he opened a second GJ (that he doesn't expect to last for long) to tie up loose ends.
From his tone, I though it sounded like no more indictments were forthcoming, but he certianly didn't say that.
From the indictment:
"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified."
There's an old saying: "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies ...."
I don't believe that this is true.
Also Fitz said in his news conference that the bulk of his work was done. His quote is over at NRO's The Corner.
Any federal grand jury can issue a federal indictment (within its geographical jurisdiction).
The grand jury Fitz was using was specially set up to hear the investigation into the leaking of Wilson's role with the CIA. This grand jury expired, and thus they cannot issue any more indictments.
However, Fitz can bring new indictments in any federal grand jury. The practical inconvenience is that he has to get any new grand jury up to speed on the investigatipon, so he can prove that there is probable cause that a crime has occured.
Thus, there is nothing stopping Fitz from a) seeking an indictment against a new defendant, or b) seeking additional charges against Libby.
Thus, that the lie itself isn't the exact same conduct as the illegal act, it does stem from the illegal act, and it makes sense for a prosecutor to focus on that if he believes it is a safer bet than indicting on the underlying act, even/particularly when he thinks the target is guilty of the underlying act.
For those of you who don't like the "procedural" crimes of 1001 and 1503, there's your substantive crime - telling Novak about Valerie Wilson's employment.
No, because it presupposes that everyone is innocent of the underlying crime, rather than that everyone lied too much about the underlying crime to make a guilty verdict enough of a likelihood to make it worth the prosecutor's while to do that rather than going for the whole enchilada.
In other words, your argument assumes that if Libby and Rove were COMPLETELY honest and forthcoming in their grand jury testimony, they would be cleared, whereas it is at least an open question (and probably closer to a sure thing) that at least Libby would have been indicted (and, given no facts in dispute, found guilty) of the underlying crime.
This quote from Fitzgerald's press conference today. Certainly appears to me that this is a done deal for the most part.
"Is the investigation finished? It's not over," Fitzgerald said at a news conference. "But … very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried in which you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you that the substantial bulk of the work of this investigation is concluded."
Please note the lack of conspiracy or obstruction by the Bush administration. They may not like the prosecutor, but they have been very respectful of him and the whole investigation. They have been a good model for how to act while under investigation.
If he had been a private citizen, he wouldn't have talked. The Bush administration though made it clear to all employees that they must talk to remain employed. If you're going to talk, better get it right the first time.
Unless Bush also ordered Libby to lie like a rug, I fail to see the point.
lack of conspiracy or obstruction by the Bush administration
??? Who do you think Libby worked for, the New York Times?
Turns out Miller was lying. Cooper said he wasn't the INITIAL source ("Official A" apparently was), but by being the confirmation, he was A source (remember, there were "two sources").
Libby et all were buying time.
Lying in the Times: a Miller habit.
Lying to a grand jury: felony.
Nothing silly about it, at least if you're Miller.
Why in the world would that be silly? Most of her NYT reporting has been debunked, she (according to the publisher Pinch) had "her hand on the wheel" the whole time. So why not get the Times to fight your 1st Amendment battle for you with their resources and lawyers. So what?
Lying under oath is of a different order than lying to the Times. People apparently do that all the time (Jayson Blair).
Meanwhile Ahmadinejad incites an entire society to further hatreds against Jews and Israel while the MSM obfuscates and elides the enormous historical, institutional and societal exploitations of those hatreds throughout the Arab/Muslim world. Too, Darfur is processed by EU and MSM realpolitik aesthetes as little more than a diplomatic/legal problem (it's being addressed in the WCC doncha know) and an occasion for impotent hand-wringing while the EU fails to marshal requisite force. And of course Bush/Blair=Stalin/Hitler to boot while Saddam's legal position is worried over by "human rights" organizations who generally managed, with CNN and others, to de-prioritize much critical scrutiny of the lethal regime of Saddam &Sons.
Priorities, perspectives and pontifications. Puppets and puppeteers. Pathetic - and genuninely and substantively so.
But it's the weekend, so for some hilarious eye-rollers check out some of the comments in this Man-Bites-Dog Volokh thread on a book review by Scalia.
I don't doubt you, R Xapt, but what makes you say that? Thanks.
When interviewed by the FBI and again in front of the grand jury, Libby explained that he had first heard of Plame through gov't sources. Quotes in the indictment.
But,
He told reporters that he heard it from them. He told the FBI and the GJ that he was surprised when reporters told him that Plame was involved because he had forgotten that he had initially learned from gov't sources. Fitzgerald can easily show that he should not have been surprised, as he had been working on the issue for over a month at the time of the conversations. Fitzgerald's indictment spends a lot of time proving that Libby knew something that he disclosed he knew whenever he was questioned.
That seems like a slam-dunk, except that, as he did not lie about what he knew, where he learned it, or when he knew it, his lie about his state of mind seems, perhaps ... immaterial?
With regard to the substantive mistatements about the content of his conversations with reporters, materiality is not the issue.
However,
(insert mandatory "I have never defended a perjury charge")
Isn't it a bit difficult to prove a he-said/(s)he said case when the accusers refuse to answer questions? For example, Cooper, Russert, and Miller famously refused to answer questions about who else, if anyone, told them anything about the case. That doesn't affect their credibility for probable cause, but it certainly has an impact on Libby's abilty to confront his accuser, and lends some (perhaps) reasonable doubt.
Am I missing something?
.
I think you need to look at the indictment again. It isn't even close to your rendition of it. It is exactly the opposite. Libby was out telling everyone (including the GJ) that he learned about Plame from Tim Russert. But Fitzgerald construct a timelin with at least six conversations with goverment officials.
Am I wrong and Walter right? If someone can correct me, I'll go back and re-read that PDF...
What I would like someone to answer is why no one was charged under the 18 U.S.C. 793 (d) (e) (f) (g)?
It seems to me, from reading the indictment, that there was certainly enough known to charge Libby, if not others, under any of these sections. At the very least, it would seem that there was enough to put the matter before a jury?
Am I way off base here?
Paragraph 26:
During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
SubPar a:
LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
1. Was Plame ever covered under the act?
2. If she was covered, when did she cease to be covered?
Here's a funny quote (given what we know about Libby and Judy Miller) from page 21 of the indictment, " Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true." Amen to that Scooter!
While I have never defended a perjury case, I am a big fan of well-drafted complaints.
It says much for Fitzgerald's skill that intelligent people could read the indictment and listen to his commments and get the impression that Libby blatantly lied about easily confirmable facts. Many commentators are taking that position.
Heck, I like to write my complaints as close to the line as possible. It is, after all, the first impression that anyone will get of your case.
Walter
I think it's because there is an "intent" requirement attached to the statute that would make the case far more difficult to prove than the perjury charge.
Walter,
I still don't understand what you are saying? Are you saying, Libby told the FBI and the GJ that he knew about Wilson based on his six established govt contacts. Because that isn't what it says. It says the opposite. It says Libby told the FBI and the GJ that he learned about Plame from Russert on the 12th of July. Well after his contacts with government official, and interestingly enough also 4 days after he talked about it with Judy Miller. I don't know if I don't understand, so help is appreciated.
is apparently the new GOP talking point. Of course, parse the statement and you find out this is what everyone is in prison for, including Gotti. A primary indictment for murder would not have taken place if the investigation (itself) for murder had not taken place.
In other words, yes, sure, if there was no investigation, Libby would have gotten away with it. Official A still might :).
Oops, my fault, I missed the sex exception in the federal perjury statute.
I suppose you'll argue that Clinton's sexual escapades were "victimless crimes." (Tell that to Juanita Broaddrick). Well, it's been two years, and I've yet to hear anyone explain who the "victim" was in this leak. And no, the fact that having his lies exposed damaged Joe Wilson doesn't make him a victim.
The complaint charges Libby not with perjury or false statements for saying to the FBI/GJ that he learned of Plame from Russert, but for saying to the FBI/GJ that, when he spoke to Russert, he did not remember that "at the time of his conversation with Russert" he did not remember that he already knew of Plame.
I think I may have answered my own question a bit here, though. Fitzgerald can easily prove that Libby should have, and probably did, remember about Plame at the time he spoke to Russert. It makes it more plausible that Libby would misrepresent other, more important portions of the conversation if he would misrepresent such a minor point.
Walter
Sections (a), (b), and (c) requires intent, the sections I asked about do not. The requirement for these sections is that the actor(s) "...willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it..."
Is this not what happened in this situation?
I think it's clear to most the victim(s) would be if people are allowed to 'out' covert agents and that's the CIA's covert intelligence operations (including everyone who ever worked with Plame while she was using a 'cover' before she came back to Langley, or anyone in the future who is knowingly and intentionally outed) and that's why it needed to be investigated.
Whether or not there were any such 'victims' is not something we know and neither do we know Libby's intention with regard to outing Plame. What is alleged to be known is Libby lied to the FBI and a federal Grand Jury, if we aren't all victims here then I don't know who would be. Fitzgerald made it clear in his press conference that no one is above the law and that for the Justice system to work a person must be truthful when speaking to investigators and truthful when testifying in front of a grand jury. Basically, even if Libby hurts no one in fact by 'outing' an already pretty out Plame (which BTW we don't know for sure as the agency would surely keep it under wraps for fear of exposing other agents or sources) he can't subsequently lie about it.
I can't see why this would be difficult to understand.
Isn't 'willfully' an intent requirement? Maybe I don't understand but if it were a strict liabilty crime it wouldn't say 'willfully'. At least that what I thought, though my thoughts aren't necessarily the smartest or best ones out there.
How is this statement, direct from Libby's GJ testimony, testifying that he "couldn't remember":
Libby: " And then he {Russert} said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him."
Doesn't that clearly say he told the GJ that he said he didn't know that? Not that he didn't recall it? Or am I still missing something?
I thought Fitzgerald explained it well at the press conference. He said the victim is the American people. At a time when more human intelligence is needed to keep the country safe, the outing of a CIA operative who has a civilian cover discourages others from wanting to be CIA oepratives.
So even if you don't want to see Valerie Plame as a vicitm of the leak, there's a compelling case that there was much larger harm to the intelligence community.
The stutue uses different language.."intent" in the first three sections, and then "willfull" in the sections thereafter. I take this to mean that there are two different standards as well.
I think it is also worth noting that under this statute, the question of whether or not Plame was covert is not a foundation for charging under the Act.
It just seems to me that proving criminal activity under this statute requires a much lower burden than under the IIPA. And if this is the case, why wouldn't a prosecutor described at various times as "bulldogged" and "tough", shrink from putting these facts and actors before a jury and letting them decide?
Something doesn't add up here I'm afraid.
I can only hope.
Has anyone calculated the maximum penalty Libby could receive, realistically, if he went to trial and lost? I would guess 5 years for perjury times 2, 3 years obstruction, 2 years times two for false statements. Say 17 years, worst case. Best case, with a deal, he pleads to a false statement or two, and has a shot at preserving a license to practice law. Pardon from Bush does not solve problems with state bar association, does it?
Perhas we should look for Libby receiving "we will take care of you" job offers from big GOP backers, so he does not have to worry about the law license. Plus assuarances about a pardon from Bush.
Fitz must know he has gotten nowhere special if he stops now (in light of pardon power). Maybe he thinks the crimes were not too special, but I doubt it. He seems too competitive to simply close up shop now, judging from his chasing of Ryan.
As I predicted, Harry Reid and other Dems who didn't even think Clinton should have had to resign for his perjury and obstruction of justice are now talking about how serious all this is. "Executive Privilege," I guess.
Clinton's (non)perjury was not considered sufficiently related to "treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors" as mentioned in the office because of the relatively minor nature of the offense as well as the lack of political relationship (if you want to argue misdemeanor should count as all misdemeanors, then Bush should have been impeached for having an unlicensed (collector's) gun in Washington, DC, against DC law.
I mean, if you had a job, and you get a traffic violation, you are unlikely to get fired. On the other hand, using your high level security clearance to betray the confidence of our nation's intelligence operations does seem like the kind of thing one can get fired for.
And I suppose you're shocked by all those Republican politicians who were outraged at Clinton for his perjury and obstruction charges but who now say those same charges against Libby are mere technical violations and no big deal?
Reading the indictment closely, it doesn't say that Official A *told* Novak that Plame was CIA:Indeed, that passive "was discussed" appears passim, blurring causality. I don't know if that's caginess or poor drafting, hopefully the former. Anyway, Novak could've been the one to tell A about Plame, having learned it elsewhere.
IIRC, there may be a Sixth Amendment/Fed Rules of Evidence issue with Fitzgerald attempting to introduce testimony by a party who will testify to only part of the relevant facts. Here, where Cooper would say "he said nothing to me about other reporters talking about Plame" but then presumably refuse to answer the logical defense question "did you discuss this with other reporters prior to talking to Libby?", Libby's confrontation right may be impacted. Any FRE afficiandos?
Of course, then Cooper would face contempt (again?).
Remember the meme (seems that it was only last week...) that Keller, Dowd, et. al. were helping Libby by dinging Ms. "Miss Run Amok" Miller's credibility?
Boiled down to elements in contention, Fitzgerald must show that (1) Miller is right and Libby is lying (her notes are only somewhat helpful here, as her own editors say they are not up to snuff and she makes up conversations and allegations out of whole cloth (Abramson(sp?) and Calame); (2) Cooper is right and Libby is lying (We haven't seen Cooper's notes, but we know that he would go to jail rather than answer questions about people other than Rove or Libby); (3) Russert is right and Libby is lying (Remember, Russert says he only testified to what he told Libby). If Fitzgerald cannot prove at least two of those three, the obstruction of justice count probably falls. The argument is about a few words in a conversation both parties admit two years before the reporters were questioned under oath, and, for all that Fitzgerald argues that there is a common motive, the individual lies are different for each reporter, so proving one doesn't prove the next.
Finally, (4) Libby lied about the emotions he felt while talking to the reporters, because, at the time he talked to the reporters, he remembered something he says now he had forgotten then.
For all of Fitzgerald's advantages as a prosecutor, I don't see the normal 90% success rate being helped here.
Walter
I think the consensus opinion of Republicans and conservatives – and at any rate, my opinion – is that perjury is a big deal, but that equating Fitzgerald/Libby as an “Administration scandal” to Starr/Clinton is inapt because:
1) Libby is not the President of the United States.
2A) Clinton had to testify under oath to defend himself in a civil case (unless he was willing to concede facts in the sex harassment case, in hindsight a better strategy). This is now normal in a sex harassment case. The law requiring such a defendant to testify to other sex in the workplace (to see if people like Monica got job advancement after sex, as she in fact did) may be seen as overly intrusive, but we can hardly recommend (the Senate’s) jury nullification for that reason to Bill Clinton, since it was Clinton who signed this requirement into law. At any rate, Clinton’s false and misleading testimony was at least as material as Libby’s.
2B) In contrast, Libby had to testify because Bush ordered all his employees to cooperate with the prosecutor (presumably as a condition of employment, since he has no other power over them).
The facts, that Bush required such cooperation, that this broad cooperation was instrumental in catching Libby up in his lies (if lies they were), and that the Bush Administration and lackeys did not stonewall or smear the special prosecutor, mean that however illegal or scandalous the acts of Scooter Libby, these are scandals of Scooter Libby, not scandals of Bush himself or of the rest of the Bush Administration.
Yes, you're right, you should invoke you're right against self-incrimination (at least until you talk to a lawyer). And does this cause the system to lose. Well, yeah, but that's what civil rights are, checks on government power that typically work against government so they can't oppress the population.
In my opinion, if this is a sustainable charge of perjury, then Libby should have been charged with the substantive crime. Because if he is demonstrably lying about how he spread the fact that Plame was working at the CIA and admits that he spread the fact that Plame was working at the CIA, a jury could reasonably infer that he knew she was covert when he outed her, i.e., "You're lying about how you did it to create the illusion that you didn't do it."
I think Fitzgerald indicted Libby with perjury knowing full well that the only way Libby can prove he told the truth to the grand jury is to explain why he deceived the reporters in the spreading the fact that Plame worked for the CIA. That is, he did it to out her cover and get even with Joe Wilson. Hence, the grand jury is remaining open: either Libby takes the lesser charge and escapes being nailed on violating the espionage statute or he confesses to the larger violation and vindicates himself of the perjury charges. It's a Hobson's choice.
By the way - the AP reports that Official A is Rove, according to "three sources close to the investigation."
I'm not sure how Libby could know that she was covert if she in fact was not covert. However, if Libby intended to out her, believing that she was covert, that would constitute an attempt. I think Libby was trying to avoid having criminal intent attached to his actions so as to avoid a number of plausible charges.
That's how active Valerie Plame would have had to be as a covert CIA operative before someone who outs her could be prosecuted for doing so. It's not the definition of covert.
Fitzgerald took the trouble to establish that Valerie Plame was a covert operative in the indictment, that "Official A" leaked her identity to Novak, and that Libby leaked her identity to Russert et al. Because the legislation about prosecuting someone who does that are written very tightly, it was always possible that the scum who did it would escape indictment on that specific count: but it wouldn't make it any less a scummy thing to do.
But, did Libby actually ever say the name Valerie Plame? Is it a felony to mention a spouses place of work if it is the CIA? Did Russert, Cooper, or Miller ever actually say that Libby told them that Wilson's wife "Valerie Plame" worked at the CIA? (in fact, didn't Russert say they never talked about Valerie Plame? But did Russert say they never talked about Wilson's wife?) Did Russert, Cooper, or Miller ever say that Libby told them that "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA? Didn't Russert, Cooper, and Miller only claim that Libby's deposition did not match their recollection of their conversation? Didn't Cooper only claim that Libby didn't say "yeah, I've heard that too" but instead personally confirmed that Wilson's wife work for the CIA (which does not imply that Libby told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, just that he confirmed this information)?
Also, I am not convinced that Libby ever said to the GJ or the FBI that he didn't recall in his conversation with Russert that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Semantically it sounds like Libby decided not to recall at that moment --- as a conscious choice --- that he knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA for Russert's benefit (so he could point to Wilson as biased without actually being held accountable in the press by Russert). His subsequent conversations with future reporters like Cooper would be accurate if he said he had heard from reporters that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
Granted this is all semantic spin, but I'm not sure you can say someone knowingly obstructed justice or committed perjury when you only have the semantic difference of "I've heard" and "I know" as recollected after many years.
Did Libby ever talk to Corn?
Where did David Corn get his information?
Is this obstruction of justice?
1) doesn't matter
2) yes
The relevant law state the crime is to "identify", one can identify without stating the name by stating characteristics that are publically unique. Valerie Plame's status as Joe Wilson's wife was public knowledge, her status as CIA agent was NOT.
You need to reread the indictment, this is clearly not what it alleges.
Your link to a dictionary definition is complete rubbish. The term "covert" is a term of art. It has a legal definition that applies in the enforcement of the statute. The ordinary and plain meaning of "covert" that is in the dictionary is irrelevant. The definition of covert for the purposes of this case is as I stated above.
There's ONE sense of "covert" that triggers the IIPA. Very narrowly drawn.
There's ANOTHER, broader sense that is congruent with "classified," which is what the indictment alleges Plame's CIA position was.
The latter may be prosecutable under the Espionage Act or some other statute. Or maybe not. One of the remarkable things this case has displayed is how little clear criminal law there is to indict someone who blows an agent's cover.
But please don't be insulting about whether Plame was "covert" or not before you get clear what sense of the word you, and your interlocutors, mean.
I think it was insulting to link to an obviously irrelevant dictionary definition. Whether Plame was classified or not, she was not covert under the statute. That's it.
As for her being classified, that's irrelevant, too, because Libby wasn't charged with exposing an classified agent, he was charged with perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, none of which hinge on the status of Valerie Plame at the CIA.
The case has not pointed out "how little" law there is; the fact is there is no law that makes classified information per se illegal unless it is the intentional release of covert status. Covert status, as I said, is a term of art with, as you concede, a narrow definition. Looking to the dictionary is not only unhelpful because it is irrelevant, it is methodologically invalid here, as the dictionary is a collection of generalized usages, not a code of narrow and specific regulatory or legal meanings.
Frankly, it is insulting to my intelligence, and the intelligence of any other interlocutors here, to pretend otherwise by defending the indefensible.
Jesurgislac,
You are wrong. Fitz never used the word "covert". He was very careful to use the word "classified". There is a world of difference between the two as it pertains to the CIA and its employees. The number of employees, employee roster, budget, etc at the CIA is "classified", some of the operatives at the DO are "covert" and some operatives are NOC (Non Official Cover) are not classified as "covert".
I thought it remarkable that Fitz intentionally used the word "classified".
Remus, you don't have enough intelligence for it to be insulted. Being haughty doesn't excuse the fact that you're asserting something you don't know ANYTHING about, because much of the information that would provide us with the answer to the question about whether she was covert was, in itself, classified, and still is.
Too many of your equally idiotic friends have said that this was a BS investigation because no underlying law was broken. Given that we don't have the information available to make that assertion, shouldn't we at least presume that (lifelong Republican) Peter Fitzgerald is minimally not so much a democratic hack that he walked in the first day, noticed that nothing illegal had occurred, and said "lets see if i can manufacture a perjury charge?"
Emperor Justin,, Who Went To Exeter: Remus, you don't have enough intelligence for it to be insulted.
Wow. I'm glad we aren't resorting to ad hominems. I fail to see where my text is "haughty" (i.e., at no point do I use prep school adjectives like "haughty"), but, even aside from the fact that comment is irrelevant to my argument, I'll note that my first post on this topic mentions that Fitzgerald appears, to me, to be trapping Libby with a lesser offense because he hasn't the evidence to charge him with the greater one he suspects Libby committed. That said, yes, I think if Fitzgerald had the evidence to charge Libby with outing a covert agent, he would have charged him with that. He did not charge him with that.
The indictement details quite clearly how Libby outed Plame, and that the outing was purposeful. What it doesn't show is whether Libby knew or believed that she was covert as defined by the IIPA. If Libby knew it, it would have to be true; if Libby believed it, then it would be an attempt. It is impossible for Libby to believe she is covert if he had access to the classified information proving she is not. It would be impossible for him to know she was covert if she was not covert.
Here's the thing: one need not have access to classified information to know whether Plame was covert. Covert is defined by the relevant statute. So Libby's access to classified information is irrelevant to my analysis.
Plame has not been abroad undercover in the past 5 years. She has not been in the field. She has been in the States meeting with foreigners and pretending not to work for the CIA. That fact has been in multiple papers more than once. She is not covert. It is impossible to out a non-convertagent under the IIPA. I can state that with absolute certainty.
So I don't see how the fact that she was classified makes a difference. If the classified information says she is not covert, it tends to exonerate Libby from the charge Fitzgerald did not indict him with, and the charge which you and your dictionary-hunting friends seem to think is in the indictment, despite the fact that it isn't there.
Volokh Conspiracy indeed...
Who told Novak?
If Fitzgerald knows, which he should know as Novak cooperated, why isn't that person charged with outing a "covert" agent?
If it was legal to give her name then why would Libby lie?
Does anyone know if outing her was legal or illegal....Did Fitzgerald ever answer her exact status and if it was illegal to out her?
Is it a possibility that Judith Miller told Novak because she did'nt want to be in trouble with the NY Times yet wanted the truth out there?
If that were so then she would'nt be in trouble for telling Novak....but I'm not sure it fits the timeline.
Yet, everyone was wondering why she would have to go to jail for not revealing a source for a story she never wrote.
Why would'nt she have written a story? Again, the NYT's maybe would'nt publish it so she slipped it to Novak?
Could it be that since Novak said it was Miller that told him..Fitzgerald simply wanted to know if that were true and if so, who told Miller?
I know that Novak credited a Senior Official or something to that effect--can't recall right now the exact wording.but since Miller told NOvak the source, he just skipped the part about it being 2nd hand?
HELP????????
"... is apparently the new GOP talking point. Of course, parse the statement and you find out this is what everyone is in prison for, including Gotti." Justin
That a simple fact is dismissed as a talking point is revealing. Firstly, I explicitly noted Libby should have resigned as a result of his indictment, as he did. Secondly, am not a member of the GOP. Finally, the perspective previously offered (internationally, and domestically vis-a-vis Broaddrick) is what is significant. Juanita Broaddrick.
A very simple thought experiment. Imagine. If it had been Libby, or anyone else in the administration who had assaulted and raped Broaddrick at any point in their past no one in the MSM and thus very few among the public at large would be dismissing the offense under the category of it was merely about sex. Nor should they have. Relegate every other scandal to a secondary or lesser status - other than his failure to act more responsibly in the wake of WTC '93, which occurred but one single month into his presidency. But Broaddrick is - and should be - the standout exception precisely because her physical assault and rape should never have been categorically dismissed under the "talking point" heading of it was only sex.
And we haven't even broached the subject of Joseph Wilson's deceptions. But for some warranted perspective, give a responsible answer concerning Broaddrick's physical assault and rape. Virtually the only other option is to continue repeating the MSM's memory hole mantra.
Priorities and perspectives. Puppets and puppeteers.