|
Banned
|
This thread was anchored, in it's OP, by a WaPo editorial that was "justified" by excerpts of a soon to be released book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307346811/sr=8-1/qid=1156557686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8"> Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War</a>, by David Corn and Newsweek's Michael Isikoff
I've started a new thread, titled as it is in David Corn's most recent excerpt from his above titled book, and I hope that those who embraced the conclusions in the WaPo editorial in this thread's OP, will react to David Corn's and Michael Isikoff's newest revelations, with similar enthusiasm:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108229">What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA</a>
The content in the first quote box below was written by John Dean, two years before Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby was announced.
Howard Fineman's Newsweek report that follows, certainly supports the late 2005 and early 2006 reporting of John Dickerson, displayed in depth at the thread I post about, above.
The news reporting of Fineman and Dickerson, coupled with the language in what should have been a brief indictment of Libby for perjury and obstruction, but instead, delved into description and citation of laws which Libby was not indicted for allegedley breaking.....coupled with the curious length of time that Fitzgerald's investigation is taking, IMO, provides serious consideration of both of John Dean's columns, written two full years, apart:
Quote:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html
A Further Look At The Criminal ChargesThat May Arise From the Plame Scandal, In Which a CIA Agent's Cover Was Blown
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Oct. 10, 2003
.........It is entirely possible that no one at the Bush "White House" or on the President's personal staff, was involved in the initial leak to Novak. It could have been someone at the National Security Council, which is related to the Bush White House but not part of it.
In fact, Novak wrote in one of his later columns, that the leak came from a person who was "no partisan gunslinger." That sounds like an NSC staffer to me. And as Newsweek also reported (you can count on Michael Isikoff to dig this stuff out), Valerie Plame's CIA identity was likely known to senior intelligence people on the NSC staff, for apparently one of them had worked with Ms. Plame at the CIA.
But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371">federal conspiracy statute</a>.
Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here
This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.
Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.
What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.
If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity. There are others.............
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600327/...wsweek/page/2/
Rove at War
He rose using tactics his foes are turning against him. But never bet against Karl Rove.
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 4:04 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
.........Rove's lawyer says that there has been no wrongdoing, and that the prosecutor has told him that Rove is not a "target" of the probe. But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: that he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil.....
.........It's unlikely that any White House officials considered that they were doing anything illegal in going after Joe Wilson. Indeed, the line between national security and politics had long since been all but erased by the Bush administration. In the months after 9/11, the Republican National Committee, a part of Rove's empire, had sent out a fund-raising letter that showed the president aboard Air Force One in the hours after the attack. Democrats howled, but that was the Bush Rove was selling in the re-election campaign: commander in chief. Now Wilson was getting in the way of that glorious story, essentially accusing the administration of having blundered or lied the country into war.
How do you publicly counter a guy like that? As "senior adviser," Rove would be involved in finding out. Technically, Rove was in charge of politics, not "communications." But, as he saw it, the two were one and the same—and he used his heavyweight status to push the message machine run by his Texas protegé and friend, Dan Bartlett. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was sent out to trash the Wilson op-ed. "Zero, nada, nothing new here," he said. <b>Then, on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip.</b> How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One...........
|
Quote:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html
A Cheney-Libby Conspiracy, Or Worse? Reading Between the Lines of the Libby Indictment
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Nov. 04, 2005
....Again, Libby is charged with having perjured himself, made false statements, and obstructed justice by lying to FBI agents and the grand jury. A bare-bones indictment would address only these alleged crimes.
But this indictment went much further - delving into a statute under which Libby is not charged.
Count One, paragraph 1(b) is particularly revealing. Its first sentence establishes that Libby had security clearances giving him access to classified information. Then 1(b) goes on to state: "As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure." (The section also goes on to stress that Libby executed, on January 23, 2001, an agreement indicating understanding that he was receiving classified information, the disclosure of which could bring penalties.)
What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code.
The Espionage Act criminalizes, among other things, the willful - or grossly negligent -- communication of national-defense related information that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." It also criminalizes conspiring to violate this anti-disclosure provision
But Libby isn't charged with espionage. He's charged with lying to our government and thereby obstructing justice. So what's going on? Why is Fitzgerald referencing the Espionage Act?
The press conference added some clarity on this point.
Libby's Obstruction Has Blocked An Espionage Act Charge
The Special Counsel was asked, "If Mr. Libby had testified truthfully, would he be being charged in this crime today?" His response was more oblique than most.
In answering, he pointed out that "if national defense information which is involved because [of Plame's] affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act." (Emphasis added). (As noted above, gross negligence would also suffice.)
But, as Fitzgerald also noted at his press conference, great care needs to be taken in applying the Espionage Act: "So there are people," he said, "who argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the [British] Official Secrets Act. I don't buy that theory, but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute."
His further example was also revealing. "Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.... If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts...." (Emphases added.)
Finally, he added. "We have not charged him with [that] crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated [the Espionage Act]. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, go into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight." (Emphasis added)
In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793, a provision which he is willing to invoke, albeit with care.
And who is most vulnerable under the Espionage Act? Dick Cheney - as I will explain.
<b>Libby Is The Firewall Protecting Vice President Cheney</b>
The Libby indictment asserts that "[o]n or about June 12, 2003 Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
In short, Cheney provided the classified information to Libby - who then told the press. Anyone who works in national security matters knows that the Counterproliferation Division is part of the Directorate of Operations -- the covert side of the CIA, where most everything and everyone are classified.
According to Fitzgerald, Libby admits he learned the information from Cheney at the time specified in the indictment. But, according to Fitzgerald, Libby also maintained - in speaking to both FBI agents and the grand jury - that Cheney's disclosure played no role whatsoever in Libby's disclosure to the media.
Or as Fitzgerald noted at his press conference, Libby said, "he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from [the reporter] Mr. [Tim] Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new."..........
..........Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall.
What Is Likely To Occur Next?
It has been reported that Libby's attorney tried to work out a plea deal. But Fitzgerald insisted on jail time, so Libby refused to make a deal. It appears that only Libby, in addition to Cheney, knows what Cheney knew, and when he knew, and why he knew, and what he did with his knowledge.
Fitzgerald has clearly thrown a stacked indictment at Libby, laying it on him as heavy as the law and propriety permits. He has taken one continuous false statement, out of several hours of interrogation, and made it into a five-count indictment. It appears he is trying to flip Libby - that is, to get him to testify against Cheney -- and not without good reason. Cheney is the big fish in this case..........
.......So if Libby can take the heat for a time, he and his former boss (and friend) may get through this. But should Republicans lose control of the Senate (where they are blocking all oversight of this administration), I predict Cheney will resign "for health reasons."
|
Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG0SJ7NHV1.DTL
A case of mistaken identity
Debra J. Saunders
Thursday, August 31, 2006
.....As for the time table, while Deputy U.S. Attorney General James B. Comey told reporters that Fitzgerald had a reputation for working quickly, Fitzgerald has spent years investigating a leak that he has failed to prosecute, although the Libby prosecution is pending.......
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107027,00.html
Raw Data: Statement by James Comey
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
A text of Deputy Attorney General James Comey on Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation
....I also considered naming a special counsel from outside the government. The regulations promulgated in 1999 by Attorney General Reno say that an outside special counsel should — and I'm going to read you the quote — "be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, <b>expeditiously</b> and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies."
When I read that, I realized that it describes Pat Fitzgerald perfectly. I once told a Chicago newspaper that Pat Fitzgerald was Elliot Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor. Anyone who knows him, who knows his work, who knows his background, knows that he is the perfect man for this job........
........To date, this investigation has been conducted <b>professionally and expeditiously</b> and I believe it would not be in the public interest for anything I do to cause this investigation to be put on hold for any period of time.
My choice of Pat Fitzgerald, a sitting United States attorney, <b>permits this investigation to move forward immediately and to avoid the delay</b> that would come from selecting, clearing and staffing an outside special counsel operation.
In addition, in many ways, the mandate that I am giving to Mr. Fitzgerald is significantly broader than that that would go to an outside special counsel......
|
Last edited by host; 09-06-2006 at 10:28 AM..
|