Byron York: A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak

[sabra]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602270808.asp

A CIA Leak Trial Without the CIA Leak
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says it just doesn’t matter.

CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald argued at a hearing Friday that, as far as the perjury charges against former Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby are concerned, it does not matter whether or not Valerie Wilson was a covert CIA agent when she was mentioned in the famous Robert Novak column of July 14, 2003. "We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued — even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent — the charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.

Fitzgerald's comments mark the evolution of the CIA leak case from a matter in which Fitzgerald investigated allegations that members of the Bush administration outed covert agent Wilson as part of a plot to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson — an alleged act about which Fitzgerald once said, "the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us" — into a case in which Valerie Wilson's job status and any damage done by the disclosure of her identity have become irrelevant, at least in Fitzgerald's view.

Friday's hearing was held to work out conflicts between the Libby defense team and Fitzgerald over the type and amount of evidence that Fitzgerald will allow Libby to have for his defense. Judge Reggie Walton ruled that Libby is entitled to all of his own notes taken during the months before and after the Novak column. But Walton put off a decision on Libby's request for 275 days' worth of the highly classified Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, although it seems likely that request will ultimately fail. "If I order this, it's going to sabotage the ability of this case to go forward," Walton speculated, suggesting that the White House and the CIA would furiously resist any request for the PDBs.

Then came the question of Valerie Wilson's status at the CIA and the damage, if any, done by the disclosure of her identity. For months now, Fitzgerald has resisted turning over any documents that might show that Wilson's status was classified, or any assessment of the damage resulting from disclosure. At times, Fitzgerald has argued that he did not have the documents, that the documents were none of Libby's business, that the documents were irrelevant to the charges against Libby, and that he did not have any documents to show that Wilson's status was not classified, so that therefore Libby should assume that it was. Finally, in court Friday, Fitzgerald argued that it just does matter one way or the other.

"Does the government intend to introduce any evidence of damage or her status?" Walton asked.

"We don't intend to offer any proof of actual damage," Fitzgerald responded, adding that he would have more to say on the subject this week in a sealed filing with the court.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. How will they go after cheney?

[sabra]

well, this is specific to Libby and his perjury charge...

Cheney on the hand, could be a whole new ball game...

[jbonkowski]

7. They probably can't

It's pretty obvious now that Cheney will claim he had the authority to declassify info. There is even an executive order that can be interpreted that way. This makes the legality of Cheney's alleged leaking open to interpretation. It will probably be a long time before it can be determined (Supreme Court?) if he truly did have the authority. Fitzgerald won't bring leak charges under such vague conditions.

Cheney didn't testify under oath to the grand jury, so no perjury charges can be made there. Cheney may have lied to a FBI agent, like Martha Stewart was charged with. I think the public could understand that enough for it to happen. Maybe.

None of this will absolve Cheney, however, from all of the fallout that resulted from outing the CIA front company at which Plame worked. Hopefully, one day, a future President will declassify all of that info, so that it can be fully confirmed and described in detail. By that point, I assume people will automatically link Cheney's name with "politics was more important than national security".

jim

[leveymg]

10. No. Nobody claims the Veep had the power to expose Plame.

They're claiming the Veep unilaterally declassified a CIA report that Scooter shared with Judy in July 2003, ten days before the Agency actually declassified it. Even that argument is spurious, as the Veep had the authority under a previous Executive Order to classify and declassify his own documents -- but NOT those of another "originating agency", such as the CIA. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/12759/5214

[leveymg]

8. Obstruction of Justice. Recall Cheney told Fitz that Libby was his

initial source of knowledge about Plame, but Libby testified a few weeks ago before the Grand Jury that Cheney was his initial source before he shared that with Judy Miller and the others. Someone lied to the Special Prosecutor, and Fitz will have no problem convincing the jurors that Cheney obstructed his investigation -- I would guess, there's already been a sealed indictment handed down for the Veep.

Conviction for OOJ carries five years in the slammer, just like perjury.

A conviction of Cheney would be pretty straightforward under these circumstances.

After the shooting incident and the Ports furor, the public may now be prepared to see the Veep replaced.

[ET Awful]

2. First, I thought the law covering the leak extended to a 5-year period

prior, i.e. if she'd been under cover in the 5-year period preceding the leak, it was a felony to leak her name.

Second, it's irrelevant. If Libby lied to investigators, whether or not there is an underlying case is irrelevant, he would still be guilty of obstruction of justice and/or perjury (depending on the context).

There was no underlying crime regarding Bill Clinton, but they sure as hell wanted to prosecute him didn't they?

[savemefromdumbya]

3. conspiracy

perhaps on conspiracy charges?

[peacetalksforall]

4. Yep - flick off Libby, but impeach Clinton and have friends lead the

way to de-bar him. Seems they went as far as they could go on a lie.

Republican operatives were born to abandon all reason.

[HardWorkingDem]

5. I never read Byron York and here's why....

When he used to write for the American Spectator (Tyrell's rag) and was writing about the Vince Foster suicide, it was full of holes and built on lies and conjecture.

So everything he writes must be taken with a grain of salt and carefully examined. He's no better than Hayes of the Weekly Standard.

[oasis]

12. York's a Fred Barnes wannabe. Not a single ounce of integrity.(n/t)

[leveymg]

6. The CIA is simply not going to disclose details of the damage done by the

WHIG Plame disclosure. We may have to wait 30 years to see the actual damage assessment, which indicates that damage to Brewster-Jennings operations was viewed as serious. If it weren't, the matter wouldn't have been referred from the Agency to the Justice Department for prosecution. The referral appears to have provided some detail about the damage done, and the CIA wants that to remain classified. Note that nobody with actual ties to the intelligence community is saying that little or no harm was done -- just that they believe that Plame's employment by the Agency was prettt well known in DC. Here's more from the York article, highlighting what I see as the key passages:

There appears to be no doubt that Wilson was a covert CIA agent at the beginning and during much of her career; people who trained with her and who served with her attest to that. But there are questions about whether Wilson was in any practical way operating undercover in the years leading up to her exposure in the Novak column. The Libby team seemed to be suggesting that Wilson's classified status, if that is what she had, was vestigial — that her undercover days were over and she only retained that status on paper.

One knowledgeable source suggests that might be the case, but maintains that being technically undercover was still being undercover. "She was definitely undercover by agency standards at the time in question," the source says. "That was a classified bit of information, and is sufficient as far as the agency is concerned to bring it to the attention of the Justice Department. You can argue whether she should have been, but as far as the agency was concerned it was classified."

One document that might shed light on the situation is the referral sent by the CIA to the Justice Department after the publication of the Novak column. Libby's lawyers have asked for it, but Fitzgerald is refusing that request, too. On Friday, Fitzgerald said he would address the subject later in his sealed filing. But in a letter to the Libby team last Tuesday, Fitzgerald's deputy, Kathleen Kedian, said the special prosecutor will not give up the referral — and that Libby simply did not need to know what was in it. "After consultation with the CIA, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable," Kedian wrote. "The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby."

In the end, the judge decided to put off a ruling on the issue until after Fitzgerald files his sealed document, and after Libby's lawyers have a chance to respond to it. What Walton will ultimately decide is unclear. But it is clear what Fitzgerald wants: a CIA leak trial in which the defense is forbidden from learning some critical facts about the CIA leak.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. If you view all the facts that have come out of this case, common sense

would tell you that it was Cheney and his team that outed Valerie Plame.

[madmom]

11. It's their own words coming back at them again....

they always said that Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex in the white house, he was impeached for lying about it. Sounds about the same to me.