Analysis of the Libby Indictments

[chomerics]

This poster on Kos nails the entire Plame incident with this rant.

Can I just say something straight-up here?

Having Ann Coulter on your network debating the "meaning" of the Fitzgerald investigation isn't relevant. It isn't useful. It's like watching a dog crap to music. There's some percentage of the country that would probably tune in to that too, but it doesn't make it "news" or even "analysis".

And you can repeat that statement, to a less overtly crass degree, for nearly every Republican and Democratic professional spinner, on both sides. During this particular week, we have actual news. It means something, something important. We don't know all the facts yet, or even whether or not a man is guilty or innocent, and finding out is deadly serious business. So how about we start finding out the facts? How 'bout the media start, instead of turning this story into the same Rolodex-emptying game of Hollywood Squares that producers have managed to turn every major national story into, these last ten years?

Interviewing reporters who have been breaking new information in this story -- I'm sympathetic to that. Interviewing longtime Washington hands who can shed light on what it means to have something be "classified", or legal figures who can explore where the case could go, by all means. But there is something flatly wrong about the ongoing, incessant Pundit-O-Matic that presumes that just because someone is a partisan, they have relevancy to this story.

I'm sick of Republican pundits expressing doughy vindication that there is, according to them, only one potential felon in the White House. That's the standard, now? "Just one felon" is fine? And it's only for a cover-up, and not the "actual crime", so hell, that's just dandy? That's the damn standard, nowdays?

I'm sick of partisan defenders claiming that, well, we have to expect a certain amount of felonies in any political enterprise, be it DeLay or Abramoff or Noe or blah blah blah right up to the White House itself, and it's really quite crass to expect otherwise.

And I am very, very sick of the continuing b!tch Deserved It talking point. No, not sick -- f---ing livid. They all say oh, America's at war. Oh, terrorism is an imminent threat. Oh, human sources are our best defense in this new time of constant, low-grade warfare. But f--k those goddamn operatives, if party momentarily requires it.

Throughout the entire pundit brigade -- blogosphere included -- everyone is trying to decide whether or not the Fitzgerald indictments are a "victory" for their side or the other side. It's not, OK? It's just not. There is nothing good or victorious about this situation, for either side. Nothing. Nothing.

We've got exactly two choices here. Either the White House outed a covert agent because they handled sensitive and classified information so incompetently that it was distributed throughout the administration and into administration-selected leak receptacles without anyone realizing that the classified information was, duh, classified...

Or, they did it on purpose. I say "they", because we know that even though Libby is currently the only one indicted, the public record already shows, at minimum, Karl Rove as being one of the other administration figures that discussed Plame's classified CIA status with multiple reporters. That little tidbit ain't going away, regardless of how it's spun.

Incompetence, or intentional. Ignoring Republican fantasies that, after two entire years, the CIA still couldn't figure out whether or not Plame's status, marked as secret-NF in documents, was, you know, secret, that's what we're left with. Mishandling of classified information, or willful distribution of classified information -- and Libby, bless his true believer, neoconservative heart, has taken it upon himself to hide from the American people the answer to that question.

I want one thing out of this entire investigation. I want to find out what happened, and why. In that Scooter Libby has now been indicted for obstructing prosecutorial attempts to find out -- by flatly lying, on multiple occasions -- than yes, I freely admit I take a certain grim satisfaction in a prosecutor dragging him out of the White House by his ankles, and the prospects of depositing him, eventually, in a jail cell. But there's nothing happy about this week, or the month before it, or the two years before that. And there won't be much to celebrate even when this whole sorry mess is finally done and over with.

source

[chomerics]

Trying something here. . .

[Crazyhorse1]

You're my hero, but what are you trying?

[chomerics]

You're my hero, but what are you trying?

I changed the title to see if anyone would read it and actually comment on it instead of ignore it. . . Unfortunately, it looks like I was not right, there have only been 7 people to read it since the title changed, 21 before hand.

[DjTj]

I notice that you tried this after the Daily Show, but as Rob Corddry pointed out, Scooter is no longer news because it's not new. We're talking about Scalito now.

Look! Bubbles!

[twa]

Why was Libby not charged with conspiracy,or of course outing a covert op?

Btw great source of analysis.

[aREDSKIN]

Why was Libby not charged with conspiracy,or of course outing a covert op?

Btw great source of analysis.

Because VP was not a covered agent, as the statute strictly reads. The typical MO of prosecutors is to haul you in front of a grand jury on a bogus or flimsly charge and see if they can catch in a falsehood of some sort. Libby is accused of, according to Fitz, lying to the FBI & Grand jury as to what he" recalled" he said to reporters. Unless there is a tape recording to absolutely prove what was said between Libby & the reporters IMO this case is going to be thrown out. But the damage is done and that's what the nightly new plays on and what the Dems want so here we are.

[Thiebear]

When the starting sentence says what it does... It makes it really difficult to keep reading.. If i wanted a blogged opinion I'd just wait for yours on this site..

For all the searching you do you could have just added it to one of these.... much easier and keeps everything nice and tidy.

Libby Indicted, Resigns

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123509&highlight=Libby+indicted

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?

t=122881&highlight=Libby+indicted

US News: Cheney Rumored to be Contemplating Resigning

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121529&page=2&pp=15&highlight=Libby+indicted

[jbooma]

Honestly I think this is all just a waste of taxpayers money. One of the brighest lawyers in DC who is a dem said why even bother. He said this is similar to the entire scandal with Clinton. You have to think honestly is this worth anything.

[Kilmer17]

The ONLY crime committed was perjury. That's serious enough, IMO< to warrant jail time.

But the lefts continuing insistance to equate indictment on charges of lying and obstruction to a conviction of outing and agent is beyond absurd now.

[wskin44]

I saw an ex-CIA agent interviewed on 60 minutes Sunday. He was in Plame's CIA class about 20 years ago. He explained that she spent years building up her cover. She does very important work trying to find out what our enemies are doing with WMD. She has contacts all over the world. Part of her cover was that she is an employee of a bogus company which has real offices as a front. Other agents likely were using employment at that company as part of their cover. Not only was Plame outed, but so was the name of the company, which means other agents' covers have been blown.

When asked about the effect on Plame's carreer, the agent simply said that she is finished. The U.S. government spent many years and lot's of money putting this agent in a position to get information about our most dangerous enemies. How the Bush Administration came to the conclusion that it needed to sacrifice this asset as a pawn in their smear tactics that they always use to protect their own asses, needs to be brought out in the light of day.

[Kilmer17]

I saw an ex-CIA agent interviewed on 60 minutes Sunday. He was in Plame's CIA class about 20 years ago. He explained that she spent years building up her cover. She does very important work trying to find out what our enemies are doing with WMD. She has contacts all over the world. Part of her cover was that she is an employee of a bogus company which has real offices as a front. Other agents likely were using employment at that company as part of their cover. Not only was Plame outed, but so was the name of the company, which means other agents' covers have been blown.

When asked about the effect on Plame's carreer, the agent simply said that she is finished. The U.S. government spent many years and lot's of money putting this agent in a position to get information about our most dangerous enemies. How the Bush Administration came to the conclusion that it needed to sacrifice this asset as a pawn in their smear tactics that they always use to protect their own asses, needs to be brought out in the light of day.

Exhibit A.

At this point, the facts are that the WH did not do what the left, as repeated by you, continues to claim.

If they did, let heads roll. But you dont know that. Adn the person inc charge of finding out if that DID happen, has concluded, for now, that that is NOT what happened.

[@DCGoldPants]

But, ND said that she wasn't covert at the moment.... so that's all that matters.

Not the front company, the potential agents outted, the money put into all of this.

The only reason this was the indictment was because these are smart people, and they covered their illegal dealings in a smart way. Except Libby who's going to say he doesn't remember who told him about Plame. The "I don't remember defense" isn't going to work.

and in the end...... there is no Yellow Cake

[Art Monk Fan]

How the Bush Administration came to the conclusion that it needed to sacrifice this asset as a pawn in their smear tactics that they always use to protect their own asses, needs to be brought out in the light of day.

From everything I've read, there was no "campaign" to out Plame.

What the public evidence to date shows, is that a small group of reporters (5-6) were digging into the background surrounding Wilson's trip to Niger because of his piece in the Times. Wilson had insinuated that Cheney was behind sending him on the trip, which was intended to show the VP was grasping for reasons to go to war and ignoring contrary evidence. As reporters asked questions Plame's name came up. In at least one instance a reporter said he'd heard she was behind Wilson's choice and that she worked at the CIA, to which Libby responded, "I heard that too."

The public record so far shows that two people in the administration mentioned her name to a dozen or fewer reporters, each time only in passing, as part of a broader conversation. If that's an orchestrated campaign, they're incompetent.

[Art Monk Fan]

and in the end...... there is no Yellow Cake

No, but Wilson did find that Iraqi agents had contact with Niger in that regard. No purchase, but they were interested. Maybe that doesn't meet your standard for an actionable offense, but it is the case nonetheless.

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html

CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure

By Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 29, 2005; A09

More than Valerie Plame's identity was exposed when her name appeared in a syndicated column in the summer of 2003.

A small Boston company listed as her employer suddenly was shown to be a bogus CIA front, and her alma mater in Belgium discovered it was a favored haunt of an American spy. At Langley, officials in the clandestine service quickly began drawing up a list of contacts and friends, cultivated over more than a decade, to triage any immediate damage.

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing.

But after Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's column, the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.

The CIA has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted. Yesterday, after a two-year inquiry into the leak, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald issued a five-count indictment against Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements during the grand jury investigation.

Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with breaking a law that protects the identities of undercover operatives.

Nonetheless, intelligence specialists said the exposure of Plame -- who operated under the deepest form of cover -- was a grim reminder of the risks spies face.

"Cover and tradecraft are the only forms of protection one has and to have that stripped away because of political scheming is the moral equivalent to exposing forward deployed military units," said Arthur Brown, who retired in February as the CIA's Asian Division chief and is now a senior vice president at the consultancy firm Control Risks Group.

"In the case of the military, they can pack up and go elsewhere. In the case of a serving clandestine officer, it's the end of that officer's ability to function in that role."

Plame entered the CIA 20 years ago as a case officer at age 22. She spent several years in intensive training at home and abroad, and traveled widely, often presenting herself as a consultant.

Her official employer, listed in public records, was a Boston firm, now known to have been fictitious, named Brewster-Jennings & Associates. And during her years undercover she studied at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium.

When she met her future husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, an ambassador, several years later at an embassy party, she introduced herself as an "energy analyst." It was a story she would tell her closest friends and neighbors for years.

All that changed after Wilson publicly revealed in The Washington Post and the New York Times on July 6, 2003, that he had officially investigated, and discounted, claims by President Bush that Iraq was trying to buy a key ingredient for nuclear weapons from Niger.

"The fact is, once your husband writes an op-ed piece and goes political, you have no immunity, and that's the way Washington works," said Robert Baer, who served in the CIA's clandestine service.

Eight days later, Novak, citing two senior administration officials, wrote that Wilson's trip was arranged by his wife, whom Novak identified by name as a CIA officer. The column generated speculation that the Bush administration had purposely blown her cover to try to discredit Wilson -- a critic of the administration's case for war.

"Blowing the cover of a CIA officer is the cardinal sin in the intelligence business: It could wipe out information networks and put lives at risk," Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House intelligence panel, said in a statement.

For Plame, the most serious consequence may be professional.

"It's possible that no damage was done [to national security] but she can never [work] overseas again," said Mark Lowenthal, who retired from a senior management position at the CIA in March.

Lowenthal said he was unaware of the extent of damage that may have been caused by exposing Plame, who worked in the Counterproliferation Division at CIA headquarters in Langley.

"You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put them at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources," Lowenthal said.

Intelligence officials said they would never reveal the true extent of her contacts to protect the agency and its work.

"You'll never get a straight answer about how valuable she was or how valuable her sources were," said one intelligence official who would speak only anonymously.

we'll never know the depths.....never

[wskin44]

Republican pundits thumb their noses at the country and say that no law was broken. If what the White House did isn't against the law then it ought to be.

[wskin44]

Exhibit A.

At this point, the facts are that the WH did not do what the left, as repeated by you, continues to claim.

If they did, let heads roll. But you dont know that. Adn the person inc charge of finding out if that DID happen, has concluded, for now, that that is NOT what happened.

We don't know, that is correct. But the law may not be tight enough to cover this situation. What happened should be a crime.

[Kilmer17]

Republican pundits thumb their noses at the country and say that no law was broken. If what the White House did isn't against the law then it ought to be.

What SPECIFICALLY did they do?

Not what you THINK they did, but what have they been PROVEN to have done.

I agree with you, IF IF IF they broke the law and outed a CIA Op and violated whatever law prohibits that, then whoever did it should go to prison.

Would you agree with me that if no crime was committed, the accusations should stop?