Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly ve

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

<<Revealing classified information is a crime.>>

<No it's not Tom.>

Yes it is, Beau.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 37 > § 798 Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information†means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,†“cipher,†and “cryptographic system†include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government†includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence†means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person†means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Not necessarily.>

I've already admitted that he could be playing "cute with semantics". If he is, he's asking for trouble.

<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.>

Again, if Ms Plame's classification has nothing to do with the charges against Mr Libby, then he shouldn't have mention it in the indictment, or at the press conference. By doing so, Mr Fitzgerald made them relevant.

It sure looks like he's either being deliberately deceptive now, or he was irresponsible then.

<I knew for sure that he stated it, because I remembered reading it.>

Your memory has been wrong before, hasn't it?

<You're misreading his implication here as well, Doug. You're reading it the way you'd like to.>

Either way you read it, it's wrong, and I've explained why.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Yes it is, Beau.>

If Valerie Plame's employment status was classified, was the release of that information "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States"? If it wasn't, then no crime was committed. Mr Fitzgerald has said that "a formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee". It would seem to me that such an assessment would need to be done before anyone could be charged with such a crime.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<Not necessarily.>>

<I've already admitted that he could be playing "cute with semantics". If he is, he's asking for trouble.>

Probably not, since it's irrelevant to the charge against Libby.

<<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.>>

<Again, if Ms Plame's classification has nothing to do with the charges against Mr Libby, then he shouldn't have mention it in the indictment, or at the press conference. By doing so, Mr Fitzgerald made them relevant.>

Only possibly in the court of public opinion. Not in the trial of Libby.

<It sure looks like he's either being deliberately deceptive now, or he was irresponsible then.>

Hardly. I don't read his implications the way you do to begin with, but let's even say they should be read the way you're reading them:

Prosecutors imply things all the time in public statements. Think of all the things Ken Starr implied about Clinton in all the pre-Monica investigations that came to nothing. Did they matter when he got around to Monica? No. Prosecutors often make insinuations, exaggerate, engage in hyperbole... compared to most, I'd say Fitzgerald has been notably reticent. He plays his cards closer to his vest than most.

At any rate, even if he DID imply things the way you think he did, it will matter little in the actual trial. The charge in that case is lying, and that's what they will stick to.

<<I knew for sure that he stated it, because I remembered reading it.>>

<Your memory has been wrong before, hasn't it?>

Not as often as yours, frankly.

<<You're misreading his implication here as well, Doug. You're reading it the way you'd like to.>>

<Either way you read it, it's wrong, and I've explained why.>

No, you haven't.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Probably not, since it's irrelevant to the charge against Libby.>

We won't know until the trial starts, assuming the case holds together that long.

<Only possibly in the court of public opinion. Not in the trial of Libby.>

Again, we'll see. Mr Fitzgerald's statements definitely don't bolster the arguments of those who claim Ms Plame was covert, however.

<Think of all the things Ken Starr implied about Clinton in all the pre-Monica investigations that came to nothing.>

I'm not aware of any.

<Not as often as yours, frankly.>

I'm sure that's the way you remember it.

<No, you haven't.>

Sure I have. You've just decided to defend Mr Fitzgerald with the "everybody does it" defense.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Again, if Ms Plame's classification has nothing to do with the charges against Mr Libby, then he shouldn't have mention it in the indictment, or at the press conference. By doing so, Mr Fitzgerald made them relevant. <<

The fact was presented as background information in the indictment. Another fact that was mentioned was that Libby worked for the White House. Both are relevant in setting the scene for the charges to follow, but are not relevant to the actual charges themselves.

Asking for the documentation to support the first fact would be just like demanding documentation to support the fact that Libby worked in the White House. Neither fact has any bearing on the charges of lying to investigators and the grand jury and of obstructing justice, though. They are presented merely as background.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>It would seem to me that such an assessment would need to be done before anyone could be charged with such a crime. <<

Exactly, and that assessment is being done now by Fitzgerald's office. And no one has been charged with this crime yet because that assessment has not been completed. One reason that assessment has not been completed is because of the obstruction of justice and perjury that Libby has been charged with.

No one has been charged with the crime of disclosing classified information. That issue is not before the court.

Let me say that again, because you don't seem to get it.

No one has been charged with the crime of disclosing classified information in this case.

The charge before the court is that Libby lied to investigators and obstructed the investigation. That's it. Nothing about whether or not he was the leak of classified information - just about the charge of lying.

Got it?

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Mr Fitzgerald's statements definitely don't bolster the arguments of those who claim Ms Plame was covert, however.<<

Her identity was classified, regardless of whether or not she was covert.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Asking for the documentation to support the first fact would be just like demanding documentation to support the fact that Libby worked in the White House.>

Mr Fitzgerald was not asked to investigate whether revealing the fact that Mr Libby worked in the White House was a crime.

<Exactly, and that assessment is being done now by Fitzgerald's office.>

Is it? How do you know?

<Let me say that again, because you don't seem to get it.>

I do get it. What I don't get is how you made a statement that Ms Plame was covert and now refuse to admit you can't back it up with any facts. If I were to do anything close to that, Kar2oon would be jumping all over me, accusing me of only being able to comprehend part of the story, because of innate bias.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Is it? How do you know?<<

His investigation into the leak is ongoing, and he is working with a new grand jury.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<His investigation into the leak is ongoing, and he is working with a new grand jury.>

But that could mean he's just going to indict someone else for perjury and obstruction.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>What I don't get is how you made a statement that Ms Plame was covert and now refuse to admit you can't back it up with any facts.<<

I believe the Newsweek article about the new court papers.

Several months ago, I was making the same mistake that I think people are still making - that covert and classified were the same thing. They are not. Whether or not she is covert only matters if they are going after a specific charge relating to espionage.

If, however, they are going for a charge that classified information was revealed, whether she was covert or not won't matter.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<Probably not, since it's irrelevant to the charge against Libby.>>

<We won't know until the trial starts, assuming the case holds together that long.>

No, we know now. The charge against Libby is lying; he is not charged with outing Plame, so it won't come up in trial.

<<Only possibly in the court of public opinion. Not in the trial of Libby.>>

<Again, we'll see. Mr Fitzgerald's statements definitely don't bolster the arguments of those who claim Ms Plame was covert, however.>

Tom handled this.

<<Think of all the things Ken Starr implied about Clinton in all the pre-Monica investigations that came to nothing.>>

<I'm not aware of any.>

You don't remember any of the press conferences where he implied he was getting to the bottom of Whitewater, of Travelgate, or Vince Foster, you name it, and hinting darkly that Clinton was gonna be in biiiig trouble? Selective memory I guess.


<<Not as often as yours, frankly.>>

<I'm sure that's the way you remember it.>

As I'm sure you remember it the way you do.

<<No, you haven't.>>

<Sure I have.>

No, you really haven't.

<You've just decided to defend Mr Fitzgerald with the "everybody does it" defense.>

Actually, no. I said that EVEN IF Fitzgerald was implying what you said he was, he was still more reticent (not to mention professional) than most prosecutors. But I don't agree that he was implying what you said he was to begin with.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>But that could mean he's just going to indict someone else for perjury and obstruction.<<

Okay, that's true.

But that doesn't mean in any way that her identity wasn't classified or that someone in the White House leaked it. It just means that for whatever reason they couldn't get together enough evidence to charge an individual with the crime - possibly because of lies and obstruction of justice in the White House.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<I believe the Newsweek article about the new court papers.>

Even though I've presented an analysis which shows that the judge's statement appears to be based on an incorrect reading of a statement by Mr Fitzgerald? Interesting.

<I was making the same mistake that I think people are still making - that covert and classified were the same thing.>

It appears to me that you're still making the same mistake - when asked to support your contention that Ms Plame was covert, you referred to statements that she was classified.

<If, however, they are going for a charge that classified information was revealed, whether she was covert or not won't matter.>

If they use the statute that you quoted earlier, they'll have to prove that revealing her status was detrimental to the United States. If she wasn't covert, that will be awfully hard to prove.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<The charge against Libby is lying; he is not charged with outing Plame, so it won't come up in trial.>

It's background. It's certainly possible to lay out a case against Mr Libby without ever implying what Ms Plame's status was, but Mr Fitzgerald will have to be very careful to do that.

<You don't remember any of the press conferences where he implied he was getting to the bottom of Whitewater, of Travelgate, or Vince Foster, you name it, and hinting darkly that Clinton was gonna be in biiiig trouble?>

No, I don't.

<Selective memory I guess.>

On one of our parts, I suppose.

<I don't agree that he was implying what you said he was to begin with.>

There's only so many ways to interpret is words. Either:

1) He doesn't have any evidence that Plame was classified.

or

2) He has the evidence, but is stonewalling and "playing cute" with semantics.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<It just means that for whatever reason they couldn't get together enough evidence to charge an individual with the crime - possibly because of lies and obstruction of justice in the White House.>

Or possibly because her identity wasn't a big secret and there was no conspiracy to "out" her in revenge for her husband's distortions, as many of us have suspected for a while.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

How can someone who drives to the CIA everyday for work be said to be undercover?

It's so stupid to even argue this.

Tom, we told you on day one that classified and covert are totally different things.

But the BIG thing you have to remember is that you only break a law if you INTENTIONALLY reveal the status of an undercover, not classified agent.

This has not happened and Fitzgerald knows it. That's why he is running away from the " scandal " that had liberals excited for so long.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Oh, he knows it was intentional, Beau. He just doesn't know who did it, or he doesn't have the evidence yet to charge their suspect with it.

Unfortunately, when the VP's chief of staff lies to investigators and a grand jury it can obstruct justice.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<The charge against Libby is lying; he is not charged with outing Plame, so it won't come up in trial.>>

<It's background. It's certainly possible to lay out a case against Mr Libby without ever implying what Ms Plame's status was, but Mr Fitzgerald will have to be very careful to do that.>

Fitzgerald is known for being very careful, and meticulous.

<<You don't remember any of the press conferences where he implied he was getting to the bottom of Whitewater, of Travelgate, or Vince Foster, you name it, and hinting darkly that Clinton was gonna be in biiiig trouble?>>

<No, I don't.>

Wow.

<<Selective memory I guess.>>

<On one of our parts, I suppose.>

Indeed.

<<I don't agree that he was implying what you said he was to begin with.>>

<There's only so many ways to interpret is words. Either:

1) He doesn't have any evidence that Plame was classified.

or

2) He has the evidence, but is stonewalling and "playing cute" with semantics.>

OR: "what you're asking for is irrelevant to the case at hand, and therefore whether I have it or not is irrelevant to you, though it may not be irrelevant to other cases I'm pursuing, so I'll be holding on to what I may have without passing it on to you, to whom it's irrelevant."