Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Revealing classified information is a crime.> But apparently, a crime that no one is charged with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Her covert status was reported in a Newsweek article on February 17 (I believe) referring to court papers that pointed out that she met the definition of covert. I can't find those papers online, nor can I find any link to refute the report.> Here's one. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ york/york200602060919.asp</a> <You're misinterpreting what Fitzgerald is saying in a way that supports your belief.> I'm not the one doing that.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>But apparently, a crime that no one is charged with.<< You have to know the suspect and to have evidence against them to file charges. And when someone lies to the grand jury and the investigators, that makes it impossible to find out. So, the person who lies is charged with obstructing justice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (tom)<<He didn't claim that. He said that they didn't have any documents that said that she was NOT classified.>> (Doug) <Again, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to provide "all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified" in the time period before the Novak column was published. Fitzgerald responded by saying, "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified'" during that period.> These two things are not contradictory. Fitzgerald said he didn't have any documents that said she was NOT classified. Libby's lawyers are asking for documents that speak to her status. Does Fitzgerald have any? He's already said he doesn't have any that says she wasn't classified. Does he have any that show she was? If he does, AFAIK it is not incumbent upon him to turn them over to Libby's lawyers if they don't relate to the charge against Libby (of lying). It's hard to tell from the quote if Fitzgerald is being cute with semantics by saying he couldn't possibly have "all" the documents ever extant that spoke to her status, whether he's saying he doesn't have any, or whether he's saying in effect "it's irrelevant." But in none of those cases does it contradict the fact that he doesn't have any that shows she was NOT classified.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You have to know the suspect and to have evidence against them to file charges. And when someone lies to the grand jury and the investigators, that makes it impossible to find out.> Whatever Mr Libby did, it didn't make it impossible to find out who committed this "crime". Someone revealed Ms Plame's employment to Mr Woodward and Mr Novak, and all indications are that the person wasn't Mr Libby. Since neither Mr Woodward and Mr Novak are not being held in contempt of court, then we may presume they revealed their source (or sources) to Mr Fitzgerald. And still that source has not been charged. Why is that, if a crime was so clearly committed?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Fitzgerald DID identify her status as covert and DID say he didn't have papers saying she was not classified.>> <When did Mr Fitzgerald identify Ms Plame's status as covert?> In the indictment, I believe, as Tom already said. <<Tom answered this well in 53. Libby's lawyers asked for something irrelevant and obfuscatory.>> <It's not irrelevant and obfuscatory if Mr Fitzgerald tries to make the same claim in court that he made in the indictment and at the press conference. > Sure it is. The charge against Libby is lying. <And Mr. Fitzgerald didn't just claim the documents were irrelevant and obfuscatory, he also stated he didn't have any. > Not necessarily. See previous post.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why is that, if a crime was so clearly committed?<< They're still investigating the case. Just because someone hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean that charges won't be filed. And for some of the potential charges, matters like motive and intent have to be determined. Libby's obfuscation may have damaged the investigation's ability to determine the motive and intent of the people who revealed classified information.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Fitzgerald said he didn't have any documents that said she was NOT classified.> Read the quote. He's also said he doesn't have any documents that say she was classified. Or he's being "cute with semantics". "Cute with semantics" will probably not endear him to the judge if this case goes to trial.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In the indictment, I believe, as Tom already said.> So you don't know? And yet you stated it like you knew it for sure? <Sure it is. The charge against Libby is lying.> Then perhaps Mr Fitzgerald shouldn't have tried to imply he committed other crimes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They're still investigating the case.> Maybe when they're done, they'll have figured out what Valerie Plame's status was. <I think your Sword of Truthâ„¢ needs a little sharpening.> It's cutting through misleading rhetoric just fine.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer This is Fitzgerald's response to the defense motion for the documents regarding her classified status. You can read the entire response at <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2006_02_16.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/ osc/documents/2006_02_16.pdf</a> 4. The Requests for Information Concerning the Classified Status of Ms. Wilson’s Employment The defense also seeks all documents “relating to whether Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003.†Mr. Libby predicates his request on a single reference in the indictment to the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was classified during the relevant time.11 (Paragraph 1(f) of the Indictment). The defendant overlooks the simple fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was either classified or it was not. If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time – and we do not – we would produce them though not strictly required to under the doctrine of Brady v. Maryland. The defense is not entitled to every document mentioning a fact merely because that fact is mentioned in the indictment.12 Nor can the defendant persuasively argue that documents reflecting the classified status of Ms. Wilson’s employment would have any bearing on the defendant’s state of mind in the absence of any evidence that defendant ever saw such documents. As stated in United States v. Secord, 726 F. Supp. 845 (D.D.C. 1989) with respect to a demand for evidence purportedly relevant with respect to a defendant’s lack of motive to lie: To affect Defendant’s state of mind, his specific intent, a piece of information must have been perceived by him personally, or been conveyed to him via his contacts in the Executive Branch. . . . The point is simply that Defendant’s state of mind can only come from what he hears or sees . . . Conversations or correspondence which never reached Defendant in any manner, however, remain immaterial to motive. . . . The bottom line is that if at the time of his testimony . . . General Secord had no knowledge of the contents of these materials, they have nothing whatsoever to do with his state of mind or his intent. They are absolutely meaningless for the purposes of divining defendant’s motives before Congress. 726 F. Supp. at 848-49 (emphasis in original). Thus, the defendant’s claim that “without documents concerning Ms. Wilson’s employment status, Mr. Libby cannot prepare this critical element of his defense†lacks any basis in law, fact, or logic. Footnote 11: While this fact provides context to the charges, Ms. Wilson’s classified employment status is not an element of any of the three statutory violations charged. Footnote 12: By this logic, the defense could ask for everydocument reflectingthe fact that the CIA was an agency “whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence,†every document reflecting that the President delivered his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, and every document reflecting that Libby was employed at the White House at the relevant times.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>they'll have figured out what Valerie Plame's status was.<< Her identity was classified, Douglas.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This is Fitzgerald's response to the defense motion for the documents regarding her classified status.> There have been two motions and two responses. In both responses, Mr Fitzgerald implies he does not have any documents which show that Ms Plame's status is classified.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>In both responses, Mr Fitzgerald implies he does not have any documents which show that Ms Plame's status is classified.<< Then you are misinterpreting the implication.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Covert only matters for specific charges regarding espionage. But revealing classified information is also illegal. Her identity was classified.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <Revealing classified information is a crime.> No it's not Tom. What is a crime is if you INTENTIONALLY reveal the undercover status of a CIA agent. Plame was driving her blonde head to the CIA everyday for the entire world to see. She had not been overseas for over 5 years working either. She was about as undercover as Albeto Gonzalez. This is why Fitzgerald can't come out and say she was " outed " even after all this time. How ANYONE could say this woman was outed, especially after she sent her left wing idiot husband Joe Wilson to Niger so he could write a NY Times story is amazing, yet not surprising from the loons on the left. But why is this a story in the first place?? Because it was "scandal " number 445 against the Bush administration hyped by the libs. Well, where is the scandal?? Ben Bradlee Claims Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage now. He has nothing to do with the Bush Whitehouse, so now what to do with this scandal? This Bush story is toast.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Fitzgerald said he didn't have any documents that said she was NOT classified.>> <Read the quote. > I did. <He's also said he doesn't have any documents that say she was classified.> Not necessarily. <Or he's being "cute with semantics". > No cuter than many lawyers are. <"Cute with semantics" will probably not endear him to the judge if this case goes to trial.> Since it doesn't have anything to do with the charges against Libby, and the documents his lawyers asked for are irrelevant to his case, it shouldn't matter. <<In the indictment, I believe, as Tom already said.>> <So you don't know? And yet you stated it like you knew it for sure?> I knew for sure that he stated it, because I remembered reading it. I said "I believe" it was in the indictment, because that's what I thought. <<Sure it is. The charge against Libby is lying.>> <Then perhaps Mr Fitzgerald shouldn't have tried to imply he committed other crimes.> You're misreading his implication here as well, Doug. You're reading it the way you'd like to.
