{"id":5445,"date":"2005-10-28T16:41:46","date_gmt":"2005-10-28T23:41:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5445"},"modified":"2005-10-28T16:41:46","modified_gmt":"2005-10-28T23:41:46","slug":"the-libby-indictment-a-few-preliminary-thoughts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5445","title":{"rendered":"The Libby Indictment – a few preliminary thoughts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s what I’m getting out of this from a cursory reading of the indictment<\/a>:  Libby, after learning about Plame’s identity from either Cheney or some undersecretary or other (another unnamed administration official—Official A—seems to be the Novak source), told reporters that he’d heard about Plame’s CIA ties from other reporters.  That is, he lied to reporters about how he knew what he knew<\/i> [update: he confirmed for reporters, however tenuously].  He then repeated this origins story to the FBI (false statements), and to the grand jury (perjury)—who then concluded from this that Libby had mislead the investigation (obstruction).  For this—for lying about when and how he heard of Plame’s CIA status—he faces a potential 30 years in prison.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo essentially, the crux of this indictment is that Libby lied about the way he talked to the press (Russert, Cooper, et al) to cover the original source (which for him seems to be Dick Cheney or another government official.  Cheney and Libby did nothing wrong in talking about this, however, so Libby seems to have done lied for political reasons—most likely to avoid the appearance of impropriety<\/i>.  Which, if this is the case, is ironic on a number of levels).  Lying to the grand jury is wrong and serious, of course – and Libby has to answer for it (as might Karl Rove, eventually)—but, as pertains to the reason for the investigation, there seems to be no there <\/i>there.\n<\/p>\n

\nThat is, Valerie Plame, it now seems, was not “outed”—at least not by Novak’s report.  And so the cover-up here appears to be the crime.  Or, put more simply—this is Martha Stewart<\/a> with a security clearance.\n<\/p>\n

\nIf this is the whole of the findings (and Fitzgerald hinted that the investigation is ongoing, though he also suggested the bulk of his investigation is complete), the political spin on the left—invocations of Watergate (from John Kerry), or suggestions that this Administration is “corrupt” for having fully cooperated with a two year investigation (Pelosi, et al)—are just plain silly.  And so when Democratic representatives and their spinmeisters try to tie this to the outing of a CIA agent—as they will invariably do—they need to be forcefully called on it.\n<\/p>\n

\nAllegations that a CIA agent was nefariously outed as retribution for Wilson’s fabricated accounts of intelligence misuse are false.  And so those who made those claims<\/a> now need to be held to account.  Did they know<\/i> Plame wasn’t a covert agent?  Did they know<\/i> that Ms Plame hadn’t been outed before making the allegations?  Because if so, we’ve had a two year investigation, at taxpayer expense, based on an intentional, politically-motivated lie.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhich, it seems to me, would be a crime in its own right.  Or it should be. \n<\/p>\n

\nSo I ask again:  was Plame “outed”?  If so, where are the charges suggesting that?\n<\/p>\n

\nI honestly don’t know. \n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nGlenn Reynolds says<\/a>, “The mountain has labored and brought forth” a mouse<\/s> large rabbit.  More here<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate<\/i><\/b>:  from the Fitzgerald press conference:\n<\/p>\n

\nFitzgerald says Plame’s identity was “not well known” and was “classified.” He says Ms Plame’s cover WAS, in fact, blown (though his language seems very careful here) by Novak’s column.  This is at odds with previous information, as reported by Bill Gertz and others.  See my previous post<\/a> for details. \n<\/p>\n

\nAlso, reports have it that Wilson was open about his wife’s CIA ties—having publicized it on his own web page.\n<\/p>\n

\nIs there is a difference between covert and “classified”?  More will certainly come from this.\n<\/p>\n

\nDeveloping…\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 2<\/i><\/b>:  Fitzgerald makes a long and strained baseball analogy to explain the “leak”.  Evidently, America was hurt by a high fastball, but we can’t know if Libby meant to throw chin music and missed, or if set out to drill the hitter (who, I suppose, is Plame).\n<\/p>\n

\nMichael Isikoff asks the proper follow-up question:  why, if the leak hurt America, wasn’t the source of the leak, who “damaged” a “classified” agent—Official A—not charged<\/i>?\n<\/p>\n

\nWho knows?*<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 3<\/b><\/i>:  Fitzgerald says he is NOT making the assertion that Libby outed a covert agent.  There is no charge to that effect.\n<\/p>\n

\nI repeat:  Fitzgerald says he is NOT making the assertion that Libby outed a covert agent.  There is no charge to that effect.<\/b>\n<\/p>\n

\nWhich, that about sums it up for me…\n<\/p>\n

\nThe remaining question—did Libby pass on “classified” information…that’s possible.  But he wasn’t charged with having done so.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nREQUEST<\/b>:  Anybody have a link to Wilson’s admission on his site (or elsewhere) that his wife was CIA?  I have it somewhere but can’t seem to find it.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 4<\/b><\/i>:  Rich Lowry<\/a>:  Lanny Davis is making sense on CNN. Says Rove probably thought he was trading in public information to knock down a false story, and that’s his job: \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cPaul [Begala] and I did that everyday.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 5<\/b><\/i>:  Was the leaking of Plame’s identity in and of itself a crime?  The charge, had it been brought, would have proceeded under the Espionage Act, Fitzgerald hints—but, in a general sense, such a charge was frustrated by Libby’s obstruction.  But the fact that Official A—the source of Novak’s column—wasn’t indicted<\/i> suggests that Fitzgerald doesn’t think the leak met the criteria necessary to prosecute under the Espionage Act.\n<\/p>\n

\nWashington reporters, who earn a living off these kinds of leaks, should be breathing a sigh of relief. But we’ll see.  I suspect feigned indignance and outrage, followed by a return to business as normal.\n<\/p>\n

\nI still maintain that Plame’s CIA ties were already known publicly.  She did, after all, work at the CIA.<\/i> And so if she wasn’t “covert,” then how the hell was she compromised?\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 6<\/i><\/b>:  Cliff May<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The accusation—from Wilson and his allies—was that there was a conspiracy at the highest levels of this administration to expose Valerie Plame, to reveal that she was an undercover agent. And the accusation was that this was done as a way to punish punish Joe Wilson and to send a chill to all others who might criticize the Bush White House.\n<\/p>\n

\nThat does not appear to be the case. Fitzgerald is alleging no such conspiracy. And he even added: \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cWe\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2re not saying that Libby knowingly outted a covert agent.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d\n<\/p>\n

\nSo did anybody? Or not? Does it really not matter? I\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2m asking .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 7<\/i><\/b>: Joe Wilson’s attorney, Christopher Wolf, gives a statement<\/a> from Wilson:  “My family was attacked for my speaking the truth […] Today is not a day to analyze or debate.  Today is a sad day for America […] This case is not about me or my family.”\n<\/p>\n

\nJesus.  The gall of this guy is absolutely stunning<\/i>.  [More here <\/a>and here<\/a>]\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 8<\/i><\/b>:  Moments ago, FOXNews’ Shepard Smith framed the indictment in the context of whether or not the US was “misled” into war with Iraq.  Which is strange, considering Fitzgerald himself made it absolutely clear that the indictment should not be used in that way<\/i>, and that the investigation shines no light whatever on that political question.\n<\/p>\n

\nThis will be the media take, I suspect.  Why?  Because it is sensational and fraught with intrigue. \n<\/p>\n

\nHowever, I certainly welcome that discussion.  Joe Wilson believes now is not the time to have such a public debate—convenient, given that we now know his charge that the White House organized a conspiracy to out his “covert” wife was as much a prevarication as his claims about Niger forgeries and other pre-war intelligence matters.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut shouldn’t we be investigating Wilson? After all, presumably he<\/i> knew his wife’s status—or, at the very least<\/i>, HIS WIFE knew it.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhy was the investigation allowed to proceed?  Was it because of a potential violation of the Espionage Act – a leak of “classified”? \n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 9<\/i><\/b>:  Mark Levin<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It doesn’t matter what Plame’s neighbors did or did not know, which is why sending FBI agents out to interview neighbors had, in my view, little to do with the law, and everything to do with Fitzgerald wanting to announce, as he did today, that her neighbors didn’t know she worked at the CIA. Fitzgerald is trying to claim this is about defending a CIA officers identity and national security. But this is not the case. The issue, as a matter of law, is whether she was classified as covert by the CIA, and whether the CIA took steps to protect her identity.<\/b> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[My emphasis]<\/p>\n

\nMeanwhile, President Bush comments on the Libby indictment:  “Each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial […] I got a job to do and so do the people in the White House.” [text of statement available here<\/a>]\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd Carl Cameron on FOX is suggesting the investigation could move on to investigate why<\/i> Libby lied—an attempt to give credence to suggestions that pre-war intelligence was doctored.  Already, Democrats are calling for just such an investigation.\n<\/p>\n

\nIt’s time for the Administration to get serious and fire back substantively, not simply let it be known that Joe Wilson, the source of such claims, was sent to Niger by his CIA wife, and that certain CIA stalwarts were interested in undermining the President’s foreign policy.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 10<\/i><\/b>:  Shep Smith ends his broadcast by leaving this question hanging out there:  “Why the lies…?” The implication is that Libby was hiding some grand conspiracy about a coverup over faulty Iraqi intelligence and a desire to mislead us into war.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut the simple answer is, Libby knew there would be fallout from his having gotten the info from Cheney and other admistration sources, and that, because the info was classified, he didn’t bring Cheney’s name into it.  Besides, naming Cheney as the source to reporters would have looked like the White House was out to get Wilson (which they were, but only as a way to rebut his story), and with a hostile press, such directness would have been made to look like a conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n

\nIronies abound here, it seems to me.  [internal update:  Warren Bell concurs<\/a>]\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 11<\/i><\/b>:  Here’s Byron York,<\/a> on the whole question of Valerie Plame’s status:<\/p>\n

\n

The question of whether Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA operative at the time her name was published in the Novak column is simply not answered in the Fitzgerald indictment. Instead, Fitzgerald argues that the very fact that Wilson worked for the CIA was classified, and thus Libby’s saying that she worked for the CIA—regardless of any mention of covert\/noncovert status, or whether Libby even knew about that—constituted a release of classified information:\n<\/p>\n

\n At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.\n<\/p>\n

\n The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.<\/tt><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[that latter bit is excerpted from Fitzgerald’s press conference]<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 12<\/i><\/b>:  More, from Michael Ledeen<\/a> (who still hasn’t been indicted<\/a>), who comes to similar conclusions I do.\n<\/p>\n

\nTo be clear, I don’t believe Fitzgerald is acting in bad faith.  Instead, I picture him as the Elliot Ness type, and I feel he’s boyscouting this thing a bit.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 13<\/i><\/b>:  A statement <\/a>from Libby’s counsel.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 14<\/i><\/b>:  More from Lorie Byrd<\/a> and Ace<\/a>.  And Sullivan is OUTRAGED at the gobsmackingly vile torture<\/a> of…oh, who the fuck cares <\/i>about Andrew Sullivan.  Skip it.\n<\/p>\n

\nMore, from Volokh<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 15<\/i><\/b>:  FOXNews’ Megan Kendall just said that Libby wasn’t charged with outing a covert agent because his lies made it impossible to tell if he’d done so. \n<\/p>\n

\nThis strikes me as nonsensical.  If Plame was “covert,” he outed her, as did whomever it was who gave Novak his information (and who WASN’T indicted for perjury or giving false statements).  Where he says he got his information from is irrelevant to this fact.\n<\/p>\n

\nIf I’m wrong, I’d like to know why.  And please, let’s see if we can get a handle on this before it becomes the new media meme<\/b>:  ONLY LIBBY’S LIES KEPT HIM FROM BEING CHARGED WITH THE LARGER CRIME OF OUTING A COVERT AGENT.  TRUE OR FALSE?\n<\/p>\n

\nRemember, Fitzgerald said he is NOT making the assertion that Libby outed a covert agent.  And Wilson had himself noted that his wife was CIA (though I’m still searching for that link; meantime, here’s someone else<\/a> referencing it; and, as Sean reminds me in the comments, Stephen Hayes references this in his Weekly Standard<\/i> column<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 16:<\/i><\/b> More Ledeen<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

[…] Please notice that Libby a couple of times said that, in conversation with journalists, he was straining NOT to confirm that Ms. Wilson was a CIA person. In retrospect he probably wishes he had just refused to discuss it at all. instead, he was probably too clever by half. But his instinct was right. When I handled classified stuff I was always reminded by my bosses that it was one thing if a journalist had some sort of leak, but it was entirely different if a government official confirmed it. so i tried never to confirm anything classified.\n<\/p>\n

\nI am quite sure this will be raised in his trial.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nTo which Rich Lowry replies, “UH, MICHAEL. Doesn’t the indictment allege that when Libby said that he was careful not to confirm anything about Plame with reporters he was lying?”\n<\/p>\n

\nMore, from John Cole<\/a>, Jeralyn Merritt<\/a> (and, in response to Jeralyn, Mark Moore<\/a>).\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 17<\/b><\/i>:  Jane Skinner (FOX) is reporting that several CIA sources are claiming the Libby indictment as vindication, re-issuing the charge that they felt pressured by the White House to make the case for war.  I’d thought a Senate Report had put the lie to those claims (and Fitzgerald himself said the indictments say no such thing), but then, the truth is only what we repeat most often, so….\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 18<\/b><\/i>:  From Forbes, in the comments<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s very simple, Plame’s employment status was classified (which is one part of the two part definition), but she wasn’t a covered person regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et. seq.) because she wasn’t working outside the U.S., and hadn’t been within the prior 5 years (the second part).\n<\/p>\n

\nSecond, the Espionage Act contains a very specific and detailed list of items (mostly armaments, material, and munitions, or their manufacturing facilities), the disclosure of which would be a violation of the Act—one’s employment status as classified is not among those detailed. Remember the Espionage Act was World War I-era legislation, pre-dating the CIA\/OSS of WW II vintage.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo Libby’s indictment revolves around differing memories between the participants of various conversations with reporters, i.e. a he said\/she said-type dispute. \n<\/p>\n

\nWarm beer, at best.\n<\/p>\n

\nI am underwhelmed by Fitzgerald’s concern regarding national security.  Truth telling by way of exposing nepotism at the CIA is a story the public should know. Nepotism that produced a three-time liar in Wilson. The disclosure of such should have resulted in stories regarding the CIA’s engagement in politics\/policy—which is outside their scope of responsibilities—rather than limiting themselves to intelligence collection, which is their responsibility.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nSadly, at least one person in the administration didn’t trust the press to get that story out there without tricking them into doing so.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 19<\/i><\/b>:  From the NRO editorial<\/a>, just posted:<\/p>\n

\n

Please spare us the excuses warmed over from Democratic talking points in the 1990s: the prosecutor is out-of-control, there was no underlying crime, etc., etc. It is the responsibility of anyone, especially a public official, to tell the truth to FBI agents and grand juries. If Libby didn’t, he should face the consequences. Fitzgerald’s indictment is not a Ronnie Earle-style partisan production, held together with scotch tape and malicious intentions. But this is the prosecutor’s day, when he gets to make the argument against his target unrebutted. Libby will get his chance to respond, and it might be that Fitzgerald’s case looks weaker soon.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut conservatives would be well-advised not to start slamming Fitzgerald. We don’t know all the facts and until we do, his acts are open to dueling interpretations. It seemed unfair for him to talk at his press conference of Libby damaging national security by revealing classified information, when Libby wasn’t charged with that. But this was a departure for the otherwise restrained and responsible Fitzgerald. The Bush administration, for its part, has conducted itself with notable forbearance in this case, avoiding the sort of smears that the Clinton administration routinely resorted to whenever a prosecutor proved inconvenient.\n<\/p>\n

\nFitzgerald’s merits aside, the limits of special-prosecutor investigations were once again evident in this case. Two years later, we still don’t know important facts. Was Plame covert? Fitzgerald can’t or won’t say. Who is \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cOfficial A\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d (although we can all guess)? Who were the other unnamed officials? It is a prosecutor’s job to build a criminal case, period, full stop. But in high-stakes political controversies, that’s not really the public interest \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d disclosure is. Then, everyone knows the facts and the public can make its judgments on what is appropriate. Offending officials can be punished with resignations and public obloquy. Except in dire cases \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d say, bribery \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that process should take precedence over prosecutions rather than the other way around.\n<\/p>\n

\nUnfortunately, Republicans and Democrats engage in alternating opportunism over \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cthe criminalization of politics,\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d and it is the Democrats\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2 turn to pin their political hopes on the work of a prosecutor. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 20<\/i><\/b>:  Watching Chris Matthews just now, it’s clear the left media’s next push is to go after Cheney as part of a larger conspiracy.  In fact, Matthews seems to consider it a foregone conclusion, and it’s just a matter of how “careful” Cheney was. \n<\/p>\n

\nTo me, that doesn’t fly if Plame was not covert.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut here’s an important question: why didn’t Fitzgerald just find out her status, and if she wasn’t a covert agent, end the investigation there?\n<\/p>\n

\nCould more be happening?  Can’t someone other than Fitzgerald tell us for sure what her actual status was?\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 21<\/i><\/b>:  Michelle Malkin liveblogged the day,<\/a> as well.  Interesting to compare her posts with mine .  See also, Austin Bay<\/a> and Wizbang<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 22<\/i><\/b>:  NRO contributor and Fitzgerald pal Andrew McCarthy offers a compelling summary<\/a> of the day’s events, one that helps to explain some of the prosecutor’s actions with regard to the charges leveled (and, conspicuously, not<\/i> leveled):<\/p>\n

\n

The indictment does not allege an offense of the espionage act (18 USC 793), but it does indicate there may well have been one.\n<\/p>\n

\nThere are several crimes laid out in the espionage act, but the one that applies most closely on these facts requires the government to prove that a person (a) obtained classified information lawfully (e.g., in his official capacity), communicated it to someone not entitled to receive it, and (c) did so willfully.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe indictment charges the mere fact that Plame worked at the CIA was classified information. (\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cAt all relevant times \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u00a6 Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d)\n<\/p>\n

\nIt is worth noting that many people, including me, have been wrong about this. I assumed that the fact that she was a CIA employee was well-known and not classified, but that some aspect of her relationship with CIA was covert and classified. The latter may be true (Fitzgerald, as he should have, declined to comment on it), but it turns out to be not so important because the very fact that she was a CIA employee was classified. It really doesn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t matter whether we think it should have been classified or not. The fact is that it was. People privileged to handle classified information well know that they mustn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t disclose it even if they personally think there is no good reason for it to be classified or that some higher purpose of theirs would be served by disclosing it.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo, if the allegations in the indictment are true, then Libby did obtain classified information in his official capacity and he did share it with reporters who were not entitled to receive it. The rest of the equation is: did he act willfully?\n<\/p>\n

\nFitzgerald did not charge an espionage act offense. To the extent he spoke about the act today, he explained that he thought it was a statute that had to be used very judiciously to avoid its becoming a British-style official secrets act. That is the policy reason for not charging it, and it could be argued either way. I think he was right, but reasonable minds could differ.\n<\/p>\n

\nWhat also could be argued either way is the obvious evidence reason for not charging the espionage act, which is the difficulty of proving willfulness. Pat did not go into this today \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u0153 again, appropriately; as he noted the prosecutor\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s job at this stage is to announce charges, not vouch for them, and not to discuss charges or persons not indicted. But that doesn\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t mean we can\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2t analyze it.\n<\/p>\n

\nWillfullness is a high mental state in the criminal law. Although the adage that \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cignorance of the law is no excuse\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u009d generally does apply, a willfulness requirement in a statute comes close to making ignorance of the law a defense. The government must prove that the defendant was fully aware of the unlawfulness of his actions (not that he knew the statute number of the crime but that what he was doing was illegal) and that he performed those actions with a bad purpose.\n<\/p>\n

\nThere is basis in the indictment to suspect that Libby acted willfully \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u0153 he is alleged to have done a lot to inform himself; to have asked Judith Miller not to source him as a senior administration official but as a Hill staffer (strongly suggesting that he knew what he was saying should not be said); and to have lied about what he said and how he knew what he knew (strongly suggesting he was worried about having said what he said, and worried about having it revealed that he came about the information officially rather than casually).\n<\/p>\n

\nOn the other hand, though, Libby also clearly was not trying to out Plame for the purpose of endangering her, punishing Wilson or harming the CIA. He was trying to do something that was legal and appropriate: to discredit Wilson and knock down Wilson\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s misleading story about why he was sent to Niger. He should not have done it the way he appears to have done it, but he surely was not doing what Wilson and the Left have been claiming.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo, while Libby may have had a bad purpose as far as the law is concerned, he did not have a purpose to do damage to the country or help an enemy. That is what the espionage act is most concerned about. Under the circumstances, he was given the benefit of the doubt on his state of mind. I think that was an appropriate exercise of restraint on Fitzgerald\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s part. The charges brought are serious ones. There was no reason to bring a questionable one just to rebut a talking point about how it\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u201e\u00a2s only a cover-up and not a crime.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThe irony here is of of course the Libby committed a technical crime under the espionage act with regard to “compromising” Plame (crimes set forth to protect against damaging the country and helping the enemy, which he violated in letter but not spirit) in order to rebut the lies being proferred by Joe Wilson, which were<\/i> intended to hurt the President’s foreign policy and weaken the position of the US with regard to Iraq in particular, and the GWOT more broadly.
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s what I’m getting out of this from a cursory reading of the indictment:  Libby, after learning about Plame’s identity from either Cheney or some undersecretary or other (another unnamed administration official—Official A—seems to be the Novak source), told reporters that he’d heard about Plame’s CIA ties from other reporters.  That is, he lied to reporters about how he knew what he knew [update: he confirmed for reporters, however tenuously]. <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":9196393,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/9196393"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}