home

Unanswered Questions

Update: Anyone want to take a stab at answering these:

  • Did Libby fall on his sword for Cheney? Will he go so far as to take a plea deal to prevent Cheney from being called as a witness in his trial? I don't think he knows the answer yet since he is changing or adding lawyers.
  • Did everyone else really get a pass or are they still cooperating and moved to Phase Two?
  • Is Rove really under investigation or is he just helping them nab others in Phase Two. I think Rove gives them the conspiracy charge they would love to bring. Meaning, Rove sat in on the White House Iraq Group meetings. Is he going to tell Fitzgerald that Hadley, Cheney, Libby and the rest met and decided to use Wilson's wife who worked for the CIA to discredit Wilson and his findings?


I'm still puzzled why the media doesn't seem to understand there is always a grand jury sitting. It's not a question of whether Fitz asks to convene a new one. The question is whether he will ask one of those now sitting to take over the case - and it's pretty clear to me from his press conference today that he will.

****
Original Post:

Among the unanswered questions:

Has anyone agreed to plead guilty in the investigation
Who was Novak's source
Who was Pincus's source
Is Fitz contemplating a charge that officials violated Valerie Plame's civil rights?

Feel free to add your own. I'll update with more as I think of them.

< Is Gregory Dunagan Innocent? | Fitzgerald Won't Write a Report >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#1)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    I'm not that familiar with 1983 actions, but could Valerie Wilson bring a civil suit? It seems she's been damaged, seeing that she's quitting the CIA now that her career's been derailed.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lis Riba on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Assuming we don't see pardons in the meantime, how long before Scooter Libby goes on trial?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#3)
    by Primus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    CNN folks were saying before the press conference that it'd be about 6 months or so before the trial begins. They're expecting a lot of hay to be made prior to the 2006 elections.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    No, no, Fitz would have nothing to do with sec. 1983 -- it's a civil statute. If he were looking for a criminal civil rights statute, it would be 18 USC 241.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    1. If the indictment is for obstruction because it prevented the grand jury from finding out if a crime had been committed, and then new information comes out in the trial, can Libby then be charged with outing Plame? 2. Can other people be charged based on information that comes out in the trial, and can a new Grand Jury be empaneled to follow up if it is revealed in testimony that there might have been additional illegal activity? 3. Will the White House claim Executive Privilege and refuse to turn over internal documents that might be subpoenaed as part of the criminal trial? Might Ms. Miers be able to give an opinion on that?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    If there's a trial - even one based only on indictments issued today - it will require testimony from Rove, Cheney, Ari, Bolton, etc. and delve into issues of the Niger story and possibly other matters concerning the handling of intelligence leading to the case for war. Can Bush allow that? Pardoning Libby and anyone else that may be indicted will be politically ruinous (pardons tend to come on Christmas eve before a president ends his term), but I'm not sure Bush has any other choice. I think the defendants try to stall trials as long as possible (past the 2006 elections, if possible), and then Bush will pardon them.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    1. If the indictment is for obstruction because it prevented the grand jury from finding out if a crime had been committed, and then new information comes out in the trial, can Libby then be charged with outing Plame?
    This is my question as well. It seemed to me that Fitzgerald said, "We can't actually know if he had the intent because he's been lying all along."

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    I wonder if someone can explain something to me? After listening to the Special Prosecutor's press conference, I am still unclear why he chose not to charge anyone under the 1917 Act? I still do not understand if 1.classified information was leaked to 2. someone unauthorized to receive that leaked information, why a jury shouldn't determine whether the actions of those involved rise to a level of conviction? It is almost as if Fitzgerald is saying that the outing of Plame was just an "oopsie". It seems to me that enough was done to let a jury decide and maybe this prosecutor, under a guise of discretion, didn't have the fortitude to take a different route? Am I off base here?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#9)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Who was Novak's source? Fitzgerald has already told us. Those Jesuit high school boys use code for everything.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    So my prediction is borne out - there was no crime before the investigation. If the Intelligence Act had been violated, Libby would have been charged under it - I'm pretty sure that reveaqling a covert agent to the press qualifies as a violation. Which means - as I've said before - she was not a covert agent. Now, it looks like Libby is either pretty dumb, lying in front of a grand jury about conversations between him, reporters, and members of the administration - or the reporters are far better liars, and he looks bad. From this distance, it's impossible to tell, and Libby will get his day in court. Let me just say this now, so that people like edger and sailor know where I stand - if he committed perjury (and obstruction, etc), then he deserves to get penalized, as harshly as a judge and jury want to. Since Libby is a political hack, and since he's resigned already, it looks like the left's attempt to make this a huge thing isn't going to go anywhere. Outside the beltway/political junkie class, no one knows who Libby is, and fewer care.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Jr-sounds like you did not listen to Fitzgerald's press conference.
    So my prediction is borne out - there was no crime before the investigation. If the Intelligence Act had been violated, Libby would have been charged under it
    Is that the new RNC spin?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    she was not a covert agent.
    Even after Fitzgerald pointed out in detail Plame's status as a covert agent -- and Fitzgerald is in a real position to know, via talks with the FBI, CIA, et al -- you, little Jimmie on the blog still can't believe it? Whatta maroon . . . wanna buy some property in Florida with a swamp-side view?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Unanswered questions? What a tepid response to what should be a glorious day on the left? Unanswered questions will show the complicity of some unsavory characters who got us into this sham of a war. Nobodys perfect...

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    CharLie-certaily would not expect you to understand Fitzgerald's plain english as to why Libby's crime was so grave. Stick to Rush he can explain it to you, as you need a wingnut translation before you can echo.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Republican talking point #1:
    So my prediction is borne out - there was no crime before the investigation.
    Republican talking point #2:
    Outside the beltway/political junkie class, no one knows who Libby is, and fewer care.
    Of course, there's more to the investigation that just the charges we've heard so far. And now, everyone knows who Libby is.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Yeah, I guess there's nothing about outing a covert agent... unless you actually read the damn thing.
    Overlooked in the current discussion. Go to page 5 of the indictment. Top of the page, item #9. 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. This is a crucial piece of information. The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the spies, the 'operatives', come from. Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.
    (and the wingers continue singing their sad song. "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LALALALALA BOO HOO HOO...")

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Just bought Scott Ritter's new book. Pretty amazing stuff, everyone should read it.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    js-from the indictment-
    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.
    Stay in fantasty land if you want. BTW the Counterproliferation Divison is part of DO the covert part of the CIA. josh marshall

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    nolo writes:
    now that her career's been derailed.
    Who knows? If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, then I would assume she could sue for damages. The testimony would be interesting. Mrs. Wilson: Why did you recommend your husband for the assignment rather than a professional CIA agent? Mr. Wilson: If you were concerned about your wife's status as an agent, why did you write the NYTimes op-ed published on 7/6/03. Mr. Wilson: The question regarding Niger and Iraq was if Saddam had attempted to purchase yellowcake. Why did you not answer that question in your 7/6/03 op-ed, instead you noted that Sadam had not purchased yellowcake. sebastianguy99 writes:
    I am still unclear why he chose not to charge anyone under the 1917 Act?
    Well, just a thought..... The SP figured out Mrs. Wilson was not a covert agent. So that law was not broken. i.e. There are specific and exact definitions of who is, and who is not. A better question would be, who and why the CIA let her bring her husband into the situation to start with. We pay good money for professional CIA agents.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    You guys can claim she was a covert agent all you want, but if she was, please explain how Libby - after telling reporters who she was - wasn't charged under the Intelligence Act? Likewise, Fitzgerald knows who Novak's source was - and if she was covert, said source would have been charged under the act. Which means, the only crime was Libby being a big enough fool to lie to a grand jury. He'll pay for that, as he should. In the meantime, this remains much ado about very little.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Libby will get his day in court
    And when will the inmates at Guantanamo get theirs? Libby should get the same treatment that they get.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    It is kind of fun watching the trolls on here try to pick gnat sh*t out of pepper, isn't it? BUH-WAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    JR-Fitzgerald made that clear. He said that Libby obstructed justice by lying implying that if he had told the truth Libby would have been charged with another crime, perhaps the one you mention. Also, the GJ is not over, he will finish up with one that is already in session as Jeralyn suggested.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Lab13 - Since you have no comment but only a snarky remark... A troll is as a troll does.
    You are breaking my heart. Today is a historic day. The first of the Bush Whitehouse criminals has been exposed and indicted. He faces up to 30 years in prison. If he is in fact guilty, then he has betrayed America and the public trust. Rove is next. Have a nice snarky kind of day!

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Mrs. Wilson: Why did you recommend your husband for the assignment rather than a professional CIA agent? Uh, because it was an up-front fact-finding mission requiring professional diplomat, NOT an espionage operation. BTW, how many FSOs with decades of experience, who'd been to Niger and speak the language do you think we've got? Considering how very few people were qualified for this task, why do you have a problem with her pointing out that Mr. Wilson was one of them? Did you think you were better suited?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    The last sentence at the bottom of page 3 of the DOJ statement released today clearly states that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified. Troll opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Also, A DC federal judge, or a federal judge in Libby's home state, should issue an arrest warrant for Libby on the charge of violating the Espionage Act.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    If Fitzgerald had brought charges under the Espionage Act..sections (d), (e), (f), (g)...then the issue of whether or not she was covert is no longer relevant! All that is required is that the actor ..know, or have reason to know..that the information could be injurious to the U.S. or adavantageous to a foreign country. Now I do not think anyone would argue that the identity of a CIA operative is not such information.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    If Libby thinks he's taking one for the team, he's likely assuming that Bush will come through with a pardon. Even money he won't get it though, For all the talk about Bush valuing loyalty, he doesn't seem to understand it the same way the rest of us do--where people look out for each other, rather than just looking out for George. Screwing Libby over for life is exactly the sort of thing Bush finds amusing.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    If anyone thinks scooter is going to jail alone for 30 years, they apparently don't understand the rnc policy. scooter was a main advisor to the prez, the vp CoS, he's toast and bushco will swiftboat him in a (pacemaker) heartbeat! Remember when it starts to happen how much bush endorsed him today. Boy will that statement become 'non-operative!'

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    The first of the Bush Whitehouse criminals has been exposed and indicted.
    Uhh, can we mention the spy in the VP's office, Michael Ray Aquino!?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Wake up guys, your side lost....again.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    I really hope that Libby chooses to go to trial. Maybe then we can finally get crooks like Dick Cheney under oath. My oh my, but I can see him squirming now . . . This is merely the beginning, folks. And there is always Joe Wilson's civil suit to consider . . .

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Ahhhh Jane, nice troll that I'm sure you are, it seems to me it's your side that lost. Libby went down. And besides that, Rove is still under the microscope. The house of cards is falling. Good job on keeping up with the RNC talking points though. I give you a B+ for your attempt at deflection.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Molly NYC writes:
    Uh, because it was an up-front fact-finding mission requiring professional diplomat
    Mrs. Wilson: Now, if that was the case why didn't you recommend that the mission be handled by the State Department? Was I better suited? Mrs. Wilson: Madam, my qualifications have nothing to do with this. Your Honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question. As to "experience," since he didn't choose to answer the question, but instead talked about "no purchase," I would say experience wasn't worth a lot in this particular case. sailor - Can you spell "p a r d o n?" It's a done deal. ;-) sebastianguy99 - Look. The SP didn't charge him. That's a fact. Could it change? I think not, given what he said. i.e. If she had been, then the SP would have. et al - What happened to those 22 indictments someone was talking about earlier in the week.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Lab13 - You know, as a football coach told me years ago, when you score, act like you've done it before. As another poker player told me years ago, when you make a big win, act like you know where the cashier is. And I will quote myself from about a year ago...
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at November 3, 2004 09:18 PM DJ - We just had an election. Been having them for over 200 years. No one else can say that, except maybe the Brits, and their's weren't always "democratic." Democracy isn't always pretty, and there is a loser for every winner. I'm happy today, but may not be tomorrow. If I am sad about anything is seeing all the bitterness and fear. The Left lost for one reason, and one reason only. Their ideas weren't bought by the voters. Next sale in two years.
    The question now becomes what the actual effect of this will be. My guess is that it will be very little. et al - Now that Bush has had his ear's pulled three times in a month you can count on a very conservative SC nominee, and the Repubs in Senate getting her/him confirmed. They're not fools, and they have just had a close look at what happens when the ignore/anger the base. Congratulations on your success. Longterm happiness may be a little more diffuclt.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Jeralyn: If Libby had gotten a plea deal, would we have any way of knowing? Here's why I think he may have: First, as several people have pointed out above, there are at least two pieces of evidence that show Libby knew Plame was covert. And two that show this was pre-meditated. So you've got an Espionage charge, if not an IIPA. But he's not charged with that. It may be that Fitz just doesn't think the witnesses to that fact are trustworthy (I talk about how Fitz doesn't seem to trust Judy's testimony here). But then there's another reason. Murray Waas' recent articles seemed to indicate that Libby had testified finally on his June 23 meeting with Judy. But that's not in the indictment, which it should be (since he lied about it). Is it possible the June 23 meeting indicts someone else, which is why it's not in this indictment. Is it possible that Libby has already dealt further testimony incriminating Dick in exchange for "just" the perjury, obstruction, and false statment charges?

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 28, 2005 07:36 PM Lab13 - You know, as a football coach told me years ago, when you score, act like you've done it before.
    You should have listened more closely to your coach, then. You lost BIG TIME today, Jimmy Poo and your side is GOING DOWN. BAH-WAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Empty Wheel, it's definitely possible. I thought that was the case last week.
    This article leads me to believe that Libby already has cut his deal with Fitzgerald and will plead to a false statement, perjury and/or obstruction of justice charge, in exchange for not being charged with an offense regarding leaking classified information or conspiring to do so.
    Now, I'm leaning against thinking that but yes, it's still possible.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    sted by Jlvngstn at October 28, 2005 02:03 PM Just curious, how come i have not heard ONE politician come out and say that Ms. Plame was not covert? Why is it only the right wing spewing heads are making that statement ad nauseum, yet every chicken sh*t politician who whispers it in the ear of the spewheads does not have the cajones to come out and say it themselves??????? COWARDS

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Lab13 - Guess you don't have anything to say. Nice troll remark. JL writes:
    i have not heard ONE politician come out and say that Ms. Plame was not covert?
    JL - Mrs. Wilson, at one time, was covert. But "Covert," like "Top Secret" clearance, is not issued for a life time. She lost that status long before she sent her husband to Niger. Okay, introduced and recommended he be sent. ;-) The important thing is that the SP didn't think she was, and thus did not indict Libby under the espionage act, not what some politican says on TV. empty wheel writes:
    i have not heard ONE politician come out and say that Ms. Plame was not covert?
    Again, if she was not covert, what Libby did, or did not, know about that is meaningless. The SP didn't say she was "covert."

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ at October 29, 2005 08:09 AM Lab13 - Guess you don't have anything to say. Nice troll remark.
    Oh, I have plenty to say and you have heard it loud and clear: THE LEFT WON FRIDAY AND YOU RIGHT WING WACKOS LOST BIG TIME. Stay tuned for the Rove frog march, neo-con boy. BAH-WAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    There's an irony in accepting the absurd notion that Mrs. Plame had the authority to send her husband to Nigeria on a fact-finding mision. It requires the same amount of self-delusion that believing a light Colonel in the Marines had the authority to make administration policy when it came to the Iran-Contra scandal. You remember, the one where the Saint Reagan administration was involved with illegal arms deals involving a known terrorist sponsoring state, i.e. Iran.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    PPJ, I hardly consider someone that sits in front of their computer with their pants at their ankles worthy of consideration in the debate, so you will have to recuse yourself. Again, oh brave republican politicians, stop leaking to the press and using the right spewing heads for the classified issue of Ms. Plame. Please let the American people know if she was classified or not and if not, why in the hell we WASTED our tax dollars investigating what would not be a crime.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    FITZGERALD: I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.
    Fitzgerald News Conference

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    edgey - Good heavens, catch a clue. That her employment was classified does not make her a covert agent. Gesh. Darkly - Come on, that is way, way, way out of date. (Google is your friend.) Adept - What she did was suggest. I still want to know who in the CIA authorized the trip. It was a bone headed decision that should get that person retired - early and with no money. Lab13 - You know, I tried to offer you some advice. You stupidly rejected it. Keep on trolling. That's the limit of your talent.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#50)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Wow! How far must some folks on this site twist themselves to find a difference between 'classified' and 'covert!?' So giving 'classified' intel to the press is different than outing a covert agent!? Everything the wrongwingers have said about 'flame' (thanksfor the appellation judithas miller), has been proven to be an excuse for outing a CIA agent! Jeez, the tap dancing is giving me a headache. Bushco lied, 2014 have died, and all of you wrongwingers have the blood of innocent Americans on your hands.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Che says: "The last sentence at the bottom of page 3 of the DOJ statement released today clearly states that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified. Troll opinions to the contrary notwithstanding." Ok, I'll take it slowly. We know Libby told reporters about Plame, and who employed her. We know that official A told Novak the same thing (and we know that Fitzgerald knows who A is). Now, never mind Libby's lying - those things are all known. If Plame was a covert agent (as per the Intelligence Act), then please explain why Libby wasn't indicted under that act? Claiming that his lying got him off is BS - Fitzgerald knows what was said to the reporters - and - at least in reference to Official A (who apparently did not lie to the GJ), Fitzgerald seems to have a clear case - if Plame was, in fact, covert. So - please explain how it is that Official A was not indicted under the Intelligence Act.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    jr-Fantasy must be kicking in big time at this point for you and your wingnut flock. Fitzgerald is still in the batters box He will most likely hit the ball out of the park. BTW- bases are loaded.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Sailor - This may come as a shock to you, but yes. There are different categories. Classsified, secret, top secret, crypto secret. And there are a series of requirements for an agent to be considered "covert." Fail one, and you aren't covert. Squeaky - Yes, the SP can issue more indictments. But....since the ability to define Mrs. Wilson's status is very easy, why didn't he indict? JR must have it right. She wasn't covert. While you are at it, chew on this. Down South it used to be that when a powerful person got in trouble, and had to be charged, the charge would be for a higher level crime. For example, a first degree murder indictment for the killing of a wife's lover, when it was plainly done in a fit of passion. With no secondary charges, the win for the defense was predetermined. The SP filed what he thought he could prove, not what he thought he would loose with. As a rabid Bush hater you should appreciate that. You know, be careful what you wish for.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Darkly - Here is what the SP wrote in the indictment:
    1. 6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilsonís wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilsonís wife was involved in the planning of his trip. 2. 7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilsonís trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilsonís wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
    Now, who you gonna believe? ;-) That sound you hear is my laughing.

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip Believing someone who believed something was true? Note, the senior CIA official didn't say that Plame was known to have sent Wilson on his trip, just a belief. You're trying for crumbs here, PPJ, and perhaps taking your medication will help you curb your giggling and help you to appreciate reality, instead of the phantom realm between your ears where someone 'believing' that such and such happened is the same as asserting that such and such did take place. I believe you owe me 50 bucks PPJ. When are you going to pay off this debt to me? ;)

    Re: Unanswered Questions (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    Squeaky, et. al. - I'll predict right now that Libby is the only person that will be indicted in this mess. Neither Rove, nor Cheney, nor anyone else will get caught up in it. There won't be any indictments under the espionage act or the intelligence act of 1982. The only excitement will be watching Chris Matthews' head explode after he spent two weeks building this up as the biggest story of all time.