| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/28/05 11:56 am ::: Libby Indicted |
Reply  |
|
From CNN:
-- Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, indicted by grand jury on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in CIA leak probe.
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 1:15 pm ::: Re: Libby Indicted |
Reply |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
From CNN:
-- Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, indicted by grand jury on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in CIA leak probe. |
Who did Libby hire as an attorney? That guy on Seinfelt? good grief. So far this investigation leaves more questions than answers.
My guess is that the White House and VP office did not know that Plame was under cover until the story broke and would not know for sure until the CIA sent in their referral. Libby seems to be very confused as to what he was trying to hide. Good grief Scooter!
The key question is that the CIA would have to have been taking positive steps to hide Plame's cover. Apparently that questionis in some doubt or is very weak. Otherwise I see no reason why Libby wasn't charged for outing her? |
|
sbjules
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 3476
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 2:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| My guess is that the White House and VP office did not know that Plame was under cover until the story broke and would not know for sure until the CIA sent in their referral. |
It seemed from what Fitzgerald is saying that the Vice President knew she was undercover. It also sounds like there's more to come. But I don't get why Scooter wasn't charged with outing her either unless ??
|
|
Mysticwiz
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 722
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sbjules wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My guess is that the White House and VP office did not know that Plame was under cover until the story broke and would not know for sure until the CIA sent in their referral. |
It seemed from what Fitzgerald is saying that the Vice President knew she was undercover. It also sounds like there's more to come. But I don't get why Scooter wasn't charged with outing her either unless ?? |
the key in all of this, is that it is a high burden of proof to get a conviction on leaking...in this city, it's not the crime but the cover up that will get you most of the time.
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 3:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sbjules wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My guess is that the White House and VP office did not know that Plame was under cover until the story broke and would not know for sure until the CIA sent in their referral. |
It seemed from what Fitzgerald is saying that the Vice President knew she was undercover. It also sounds like there's more to come. But I don't get why Scooter wasn't charged with outing her either unless ?? |
I don't recall him saying she was covert, or even under cover (is there a difference?). He simply said that the name of a CIA agent was compromised. her name was "classified", it doesn't say if they knew it was classified but I would think you assume all CIA employees are classified unless you know different. |
|
sbjules
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 3476
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 3:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
From the indictment:
| Quote: |
| On 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 Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA. |
| Quote: |
| I don't recall him saying she was covert, or even under cover (is there a difference?). He simply said that the name of a CIA agent was compromised. her name was "classified", it doesn't say if they knew it was classified but I would think you assume all CIA employees are classified unless you know different. |
You can read the indictment, etc here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 4:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Wilson's wife's status was what is known as non-offical cover.
That's as deep as it gets. I don't know how she couldn't have been covert at some point with that status.
What it means is this. There are two levels of being undercover for the CIA.
One is official cover. This is a known employee of the US government, a embassy employee or someone publically working in some other capacity for the US government, who is ALSO, secretly, working as a spy for the CIA. Should their identity be compromised and they become arrested or endangered, they will get the full backchannel and public support of the US government to win their freedom or safety because they are known employees of the US government.
NON-official cover is something very different. These people are NOT employees of the US government or publically known to have any ties whatsoever to the US government. They work in any and all private sector jobs and positions and even for foreign governments as contractors etc.
But while passing themselves off as having nothing at all to do with the US, they are actually SPIES for the CIA.
Capiche?
These are the most secret of the secret agents. If they are captured or exposed they're not provided any protection as being employees of the US government because, guess what? The US government denies that they are spies and completely turns their back on them. Many countries have VERY strick espionage laws and these people can and will be subject to long prison sentences and even death.
Don't know how much that actually happens because the CIA and the US governement is very good at protecting its agents and their secrecy.
But if Valerie Plame was working for the CIA while pretending to be working for some other business entirly in a foreign country, AND SHE WAS, then that means all the people who worked with her in that country either aiding her spying activities or NOT could find themselves as suspects of someone and therefore in danger as well._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 4:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Caught something on FOX because they're the closest to the White House and most likely to have a pipeline from the administration. Don't know how true it is but they're the only ones reporting this that I've heard.
Says Rove was facing an indictment earlier this week and only a last ditch flood of cooperation from this attorney, Robert Luskin, prevented his being indicted along with Libby today. Fitzgerald's office has agreed to put off Rove's indictment while it reviews the materials provided by Rove's attorney.
So maybe this guy will get his next week.  _________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 4:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sbjules wrote: |
From the indictment:
| Quote: |
| On 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 Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA. |
| Quote: |
| I don't recall him saying she was covert, or even under cover (is there a difference?). He simply said that the name of a CIA agent was compromised. her name was "classified", it doesn't say if they knew it was classified but I would think you assume all CIA employees are classified unless you know different. |
You can read the indictment, etc here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html |
I appreciate you pointing this out, I just don't see anything that clearly says they knew she was covert, in fact observing Wilson's own behavior throws fog on the question of whether the CIA was actively protecting her cover at the time. An editorial in the NYT? Some ex CIA agent, (with an agenda?) just went on FOX and said Wilson was known to go around town introducing Valarie as "my CIA wife". Novak concluded they were not and this is a guy with experience at discerning the difference.
I really don't understand this case. I admire the prosecuter, this guy makes Joe Friday seem loose.
The most baffling question to me is Libby. This guy is not a lightweight and he is himself a lawyer. I think one of two or three scenarios has happened here. 1) Libby made the fatal mistake of defending himself( a fool for a lawyer) until it was too late. 2) Libby lied to proctect Cheney from a non-crime, but maybe political turmoil. Remember there was an election going on but he could have cleared it up later as apparently Rove did. Or 3) Libby knows something about a crime but has gallantly fallen on his sword. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
| The most baffling question to me is Libby. This guy is not a lightweight and he is himself a lawyer. I think one of two or three scenarios has happened here. 1) Libby made the fatal mistake of defending himself( a fool for a lawyer) until it was too late. 2) Libby lied to proctect Cheney from a non-crime, but maybe political turmoil. Remember there was an election going on but he could have cleared it up later as apparently Rove did. Or 3) Libby knows something about a crime but has gallantly fallen on his sword. |
I think (2) is one likely scenario.
Another, which I think is the most likely:
The statute that prohibits disclosing the identity of a covert agent is a very weird law. I believe that there has only been one prosecution under it ever.
Which means: no one really knows the scope of it. Even a smart lawyer like Libby.
Suppose Libby interprets it broadly. So he thinks: under my broad interpretation of the statute, I am guilty. I need to lie in order to protect myself (and others) from prosecution under that statute.
Fitzgerald, however, interprets it narrowly. So after investigating, he thinks: under my narrow interpretation of the statute, Libby isn't guilty.... but now he's guilty of lying and obstruction.
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 5:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
| The most baffling question to me is Libby. This guy is not a lightweight and he is himself a lawyer. I think one of two or three scenarios has happened here. 1) Libby made the fatal mistake of defending himself( a fool for a lawyer) until it was too late. 2) Libby lied to proctect Cheney from a non-crime, but maybe political turmoil. Remember there was an election going on but he could have cleared it up later as apparently Rove did. Or 3) Libby knows something about a crime but has gallantly fallen on his sword. |
Another, which I think is the most likely:
The statute that prohibits disclosing the identity of a covert agent is a very weird law. I believe that there has only been one prosecution under it ever.
Which means: no one really knows the scope of it. Even a smart lawyer like Libby.
Suppose Libby interprets it broadly. So he thinks: under my broad interpretation of the statute, I am guilty. I need to lie in order to protect myself (and others) from prosecution under that statute.
Fitzgerald, however, interprets it narrowly. So after investigating, he thinks: under my narrow interpretation of the statute, Libby isn't guilty.... but now he's guilty of lying and obstruction. |
That's really what I meant in 1). But this guy had access one would think to the folks who wrote the law, certainly Victoria T(?) is available isn't she? This is the part I just really don't understand. That's why I brought up the initial lying as being political cover during the election. I don't recall the time line. But one would think that Libby would have sought expert guidance on that law, and I would think it's available. Could be wrong. But then Fitzgerald referenced another law relating to disclosing classified information which he didn't utilise either. Go figure. |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/29/05 9:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
| But one would think that Libby would have sought expert guidance on that law, and I would think it's available. |
i'm just not sure that any expert guidance would really have been helpful on this question. that law is, in Bork's words, an inkblot. ask the smartest lawyer in the world: what does that inkblot mean? and you still won't get a clear answer.
the law was hastily drafted in response to a single sensational incident. whatever people drafted it (probably congressional staff lawyers in the 70s) probably couldn't give a clear answer of what it means. and their interpretation wouldn't be authoritative anyway...
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/29/05 10:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| womens_hoops wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
| But one would think that Libby would have sought expert guidance on that law, and I would think it's available. |
i'm just not sure that any expert guidance would really have been helpful on this question. that law is, in Bork's words, an inkblot. ask the smartest lawyer in the world: what does that inkblot mean? and you still won't get a clear answer.
the law was hastily drafted in response to a single sensational incident. whatever people drafted it (probably congressional staff lawyers in the 70s) probably couldn't give a clear answer of what it means. and their interpretation wouldn't be authoritative anyway... |
This is the attorney I had in mind.
While Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1981-1984, Toensing was instrumental in winning passage of two important bills: (1) to protect the identities of intelligence agents and (2) to protect certain classified information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.digenovatoensing.com/bios.htm |
|
|
|
