loquitur

Actually, you're engaging in several layers of speculation, Host. Let's start with something we can agree on: Libby's crime that he was indicted for was created by the investigation - it didn't exist independent of the investigation, can we agree on that?

The question then becomes, what did he block, if block is what he did? Well, I'm sure stuff will come out in the trial, but you might want to have a look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this stuff to see what was cooking with former Amb. Wilson, what he reported, how he ended up getting to Niger, etc etc etc. You also may want to read the text of the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 and the rules relating to agents, specifically that (if I recall correctly) it's a crime to blow an agent's cover IF the agent was undercover overseas in the previous five years. Ms Plame wasn't. So in terms of the underlying crimes - what technically can be charged as a crime under the applicable statutes - it's not clear there is something there or ever really was. I might be missing something here, and I'm sure Fitzgerald has plenty more we haven't seen yet, but so far that's what I see.

What may have happened here - what appears to me to make sense as a scenario - is that when Wilson surfaced, there was a mad scramble in the administration to find out who the hell is this guy, who sent him to Africa, what his instructions were, what he reported, etc etc etc. And it turned up after a few questions got asked that his wife worked at the CIA. The rules governing what can and can't be discussed, when it can be discussed and with whom and on what terms are not very simple. I once had a case under the Ethics in Government Act (different statute than the one at issue here, but also with contact restrictions and time periods) and it was a bloody mess to analyze. The classification and intelligence secrecy rules can't be any easier than that. Add to that the fluid situation here where the facts weren't all that clear either. Mix into it the press clamoring around for stories, interviews, facts, exclusives. And what this criminal trial is about, I think, is whether <i>Libby believed</i> the info about Plame was classified or not, and if he thought it was, whether he deliberately lied about his conversations.

That's two levels of fact that have to be established in this case. It still doesn't get you to an underlying crime. You really do need to read the actual statutory language and establish that Valerie Plame's status was covered in order to get a crime here. Citing newspaper articles doesn't cut it.

And look, I understand you <i>want</i> the scenario you pieced together to be true, but right now it's very far from established. It's a theory. Maybe it works, maybe not.

Fitzgerald had a very good reputation, so I tend to take his analyses seriously. On the other hand, strange things seem to happen to perfectly reputable people when they become special prosecutors.

Bear in mind, Rove went back there something like five times to testify. So far we don't know what Fitzgerald thinks was blocked from doing, which avenues he thought he'd get to pursue if only he had more time. He sure seems to have been thorough, doesn't he?