I had to step out for a while after the indictments were handed down, so I am going to read the transcript of the press conference, the indictment (again), and the nine page statement in a litle bit, and then I will get around to deciding what I think of the whole affair. I tried to read the comments in the last thread, but it got unreadable with all the denial on one side and overstated triumphalism from the other side. One quick thing- the indictment proves one thing and one thing only- that Libby has been indicted. So both sides, please knock it off.
Today’s events don’t prove that Valerie Plame was a NOC and was outed and national security was irreparably harmed. Today’s events don’t prove that Plame wasn’t a NOC and that nothing bad happened. It doesn’t prove that every Kossack conspiracy theory and wet dream about the administration is true. It proves that Fitzgerald presented enough evidence to the Grand Jury to get them to indict Libby on the five charges that have been presented to us.
For now, Tom Maguire has some questions that remain unanswered:
Some obvious puzzles remain:
Who was Novak’s source?
Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?
Will there be other charges against other officials?
Jeralynn also has some questions:
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 under 1983?
Meanwhile, for the most comprehensive round-up of center right responses, check out Jeff Goldstein, who liveblogged events as they unfolded and has a link rich round-up.
I am off to cook dinner, read what we have right now, and watch the new Batman that just came out on DVD.
*** Update ***
Mark Kleiman and the first commenter here claim the indictment does prove she was a NOC. I will reserve judgement, because ‘classified’ can mean a number of different things.
LLeo
Actually the indictments do prove that Valerie Plame Wilson was NOC. Section 1f of the indictment “Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was Classified”.
I’ve always wondered why people don’t believe the CIA when they say that Valerie Wilson was Non-Official Cover. It is a by definition issue. Whether she “deserved” to be on the list is a different argument.
jg
Batman Begins rocks.
Rick
John,
Any word from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Oberkommando on when we can roll out the borrowed & adapted talking point –“the partisan Democratic prosecutor set a perjury trap?”
It worked real well for the 1998 inventors.
Cordially…
Mike S
But in the press conference he said the word “maybe” at least once so that means that Bush will be indicted next week.
He alos said CIA a few times. I’ll let others parse that one.
Tim F
I deny that I have ever denied anything.
Geek, Esq.
All sorts of tea leaf reading going on.
I think we should have a moonbat vs. wingnut death match battle royale.
We should get a big cage, and in it put the lefties who want to make this about the Iraq war and the righties are obsessed with Joe Wilson.
And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?
Eural
Not only does “Batman Begins” rock but it gets better everytime you watch it. It was great in the theaters but I’m on viewing #3 on DVD and its been better everytime – fantastic work on every level (with slight mis-steps on the combat/fight sequences).
ppGaz
It’s the hair.
Bob In Pacifica
Was national security harmed by the leak? What an impossible question. How about: what were the secret goings-on of Plame and Company and how was that affected by the leak? Impossible to answer because in order to do so you further damage national security. And, of course, it’s not necessarily irrelevant. Sort of like determining whether a bank had been robbed by the amount of money taken out the door.
I would presume that during the course of his normal daily activities, Scooter didn’t just go batshit and decide to hurt Wilson through revealing Mrs. Wilson’s job. He may have been the first person in the phone chain, but logically he wasn’t the first person in the origin of the idea. That remains to be spelled out, and how well the press and the government asks those questions will determine how far down the road to perdition American democracy has gone.
The motive for the institution of the White House to try to crush Wilson’s op-ed in such a weird way dissent needs to be flushed out. Arrogance explains why they’d risk it, partly. But the forged Niger documents, the Administration’s “advance to go, collect your war card,” looms larger every day as the underlying reason why questions about pre-war intelligence had to be silenced.
My guess is that somebody is going to ask Senator Roberts one of these days how much longer he wants to stall investigating the manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war.
Brian DeSpain
When an agent’s cover is blown (NOC or not) a damage assessment is prepared by the CIA. Namely they go through which sources could have been comprimised, did anyone get killed etc. Of course this document is highly classified so we really aren’t going to know if national security is harmed. In fact I would argue it’s a good idea to keep that information classified. So I am none too eager to de-classify the CIA damage assessment.
Geek, Esq.
And Batman Begins absolutely rules. Maybe they should have Joe Wilson play the Joker.
Valeria can play the Riddler.
BumperStickerist
What Valerie did in the CIA was ‘classified’ at the time of the Wilson trip.
The fact that she was a former NOC is also classified (and, I’d hope, at a stricter level).
But those are distinct pieces of information.
Wilson was the one who revealed that his wife was a former CIA NOC agent. Neither Novak nor Libby did that.
.
Ancient Purple
To whom?
Leslie
What is the violation of Valerie Plame’s civil rights under 1983?
ppGaz
BumperHorsesAss said:
Fitzgerald said:
The Disenfranchised Voter
The AP is reporting that Karl Rove is indeed “official A”. I’m curious if the omission of Rove’s name means that they are still seriously considering whether or not to bring charges against him.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m going to make another prediction. I was already right about Libby getting hit with perjury/obstruction of justice, and I think Rove will be indicted within the next few weeks.
People aren’t named in indictments when they are still “targets” or “subjects” in the investigation. Apparently Rove’s lawyer sent “relevant” documents to Fitz late last night, therefore Fitz has to review the new evidence and then make a decision. I think Rove is still going indicted…
Jon H
“Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?”
I’m not sure why this is supposed to matter.
Interesting to know, perhaps, but kind of irrelevant to the legal issues.
Jon H
“Wilson was the one who revealed that his wife was a former CIA NOC agent. Neither Novak nor Libby did that.”
Actually, Novak effectively revealed that.
Plame’s employer of record at the time of the leak was not the CIA or any other government agency. By definition, a CIA agent whose cover is not a government agency is a NOC.
Novak explicitly revealed it when he named her cover employer on-air.
Jon H
Geek, Esq. writes: “And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?”
He was called a hero by George H. W. Bush. I believe he was given a medal of some sort, though I could be wrong.
There’s nothing the GOP hates more than a person who has acted nobly and heroically who isn’t a political ally.
The Republican idea of a true hero is some cowardly, corrupt, craven schmuck like Grover Norquist or Tom Delay.
Jon H
” I will reserve judgement, because ‘classified’ can mean a number of different things.”
True, but remember that the IIPA is written such that the person’s status at the time of the leak need not be ‘NOC’. There’s that 5 year window. Given that, it seems like a distinction without a difference.
The public records from the early 2000’s listing her employer as something other than a government agency certainly suggest she was a NOC at least as late as that point.
scs
Maybe some of you legal sorts can answer this. Can a person, like Rove, start out saying one thing (a fib) at a grand jury, and then once he suspects the jig is up, say the truth at a later appearance, saying he “forgot” before, and then get off? Why didn’t Libby do the same thing then? Libby seems very clumsy on the whole thing to me, from beginning to end. Perhaps he did have a personal vendetta against Wilson from his Marc Rich days.
scs
And why doesn’t any of the media seem to care who Novak’s first source was?
CaseyL
scs, I suspect the difference between an effective “I forgot” strategy and an ineffective one is the paper trail.
Libby not only kept voluminous notes, but meticulous ones. He’s also said to be “obsessed” with Wilson. It might be difficult to claim “I forgot” when there’s a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Plus, being caught trying to coach Miller’s testimony couldn’t have helped: it sort of tends to undermine one’s credibility.
Miller probably tried the same “I forgot” excuse about those earlier meetings with Lbby. In her case, I don’t think confessing they occurred helped her escape indictment; I think what helped her escape indictment was turning on Libby.
And, as has been pointed out, Rove is still in legal jeopardy – thought I don’t know what that means. I don’t know if Fitzgerald can seek additional indictments with the current GJ dismissed. He says there’s some clean-up work still to do, but stated clearly that nothing very major was still in the pipeline, and indicting Rove would qualify as a major event.
I really hope this goes to trial. A lot that wasn’t bought out during the GJ deliberations still could during a trial. That, after all, is why we have them.
scs
Yes probably true about the paperwork. Still if he would have just come clean at the end, and said the truth about the VP telling him, could that still be perjury? After all he would be on record telling the truth, even if it was later rather than sooner.
p.lukasiak
Can a person, like Rove, start out saying one thing (a fib) at a grand jury, and then once he suspects the jig is up, say the truth at a later appearance, saying he “forgot” before, and then get off? Why didn’t Libby do the same thing then?
actually, the indictment indicates that Libby did admit that Cheney had told him about Plame. Libby’s story was that he had forgotten his conversation with Cheney, and heard about Wilson’s wife “as if for the first time” from Tim Russert.
The problem of course that before the conversation with Russert, Cheney wasn’t the only person who Libby talked to Wilson’s wife about. The “Undersecretary” (Grossman) told him on June 11th or 12th. A “senior officer of the CIA” told him on June 12. On June 14th, Libby spoke with a “CIA briefer” about Wilson and his wife. And on June 23rd, Libby told Judith Miller that Wilson’s wife was CIA.
In other words, Libby started out lying…..and when confronted with his own notes, changed his story to “I forgot about that conversation.” But he hadn’t forgotten about three other conversations between June 11th and June 14th when he spoke to Miller on June 23rd….
Perjury. Open and Shut.
CaseyL
Still if he would have just come clean at the end, and said the truth about the VP telling him, could that still be perjury?
My impression is that whether or not Libby admitted that Cheney revealed Plame’s indentity to him isn’t the basis for all of the perjury charges. Libby’s also charged with lying to the FBI and the GJ.
The wording sure is interesting, though:
1. p. 7 – 19. “Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.”
The mysterious source here is “another government official.”
2. p. 8 – 21. “On or about July 10 or July 11, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.”
The sources here are “a senior official in the White House” and “Official A.”
So there are two, maybe three, unnamed people who revealed Plame’s identity to Libby and then discussed her with Libby and Novak. One is (almost certainly) Cheney; the “senior official” could be Cheney again, and “Official A” is probably Rove.
Since the GJ is ended, and SFAIK Fitzgerald won’t be calling any more witnesses, those blanks aren’t likely to filled in until the trial.
(h/t Firedoglake for the indictment excerpts)
Walt
Unanswered questions:
David Corn was the first to write that Plame was covert. Who was his source?
Fitzgerald said: “In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.” Did anyone outside the intelligence community know? Any volunteers?
Pug
And what is it about Joe Wilson that gets Republicans so obsessed with him?
It’s not the hair. It’s the hot wife.
Nelson Muntz
Was national security harmed by the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity?
Why does this matter? Were Cheney, Libby and Rove somehow authorized to out her and anyone else that worked for Brewster Jennings without notifying the CIA first? If so, how did they get that authorization? The only way this matters is if you are going to try and make some sort of ends justify the means argument.
scs
You know what I’m wondering, maybe Tenet is in on it. After all Cheney was supposed to have gotten it from Tenet. Why wouldn’t Tenet warn Cheney or try to stop Novak when then knew Novak was going to run the story?
Sojourner
Because they wanted Novak to run the story. Rove got fired by Bush 41 for leaking information to Novak. You don’t think this was an accident do you?
scs
Naah. I’m thinking you’re joshing, but I might have to look it up to be sure.
Tim F
So not joshing.
Jon H
CaseyL writes; “Since the GJ is ended, and SFAIK Fitzgerald won’t be calling any more witnesses, those blanks aren’t likely to filled in until the trial.”
Apparently, there’s always a Grand Jury active in DC. They just run their course, and a new jury is seated.
Fitzgerald can present evidence to the new Grand Jury, if he decides to seek more indictments.
Jon H
“Why wouldn’t Tenet warn Cheney or try to stop Novak when then knew Novak was going to run the story?”
Dunno about Novak, but maybe Tenet assumed Cheney would act responsibly.
scs
That is so weird. Either Rove didn’t learn his lesson or it was all some big plot somehow.
Jcricket
Fitzgerald didn’t say that “nothing major was coming”, he said the substantial work had been done. This can be parsed many ways. I choose to parse it as “I have conducted the bulk of my investigation and at the conclusion of this particular grand jury I have chosen to indict Libby”. Just because he isn’t going to conduct an open-ended fishing expidition doesn’t mean he can’t indict a second or third player for their crimes.
I would be shocked if “Official A” didn’t get the same treatment as Libby, unless they admitted their involvement and have already plead guilty (or are planning to). Libby could even be indicted for more crimes if others provide additional evidence against him or in the course of the perjury trial he stonewalls to the point where Fitzgerald convenes another grand jury and amends the indictment (it happens, if rarely).
Reading the indictment and listening the press release, Fitzgerald makes it clear that when the main players in a criminal investigation are lying to you, it makes it difficult to determine what actually happened. So you start with the people who you know are lying. You establish the actual facts. Then, assuming the facts point to a crime, you indict the other criminals. That’s a fairly common way of prosecuting a criminal conspiracy.
Again, I’m not arguing that Cheney will be indicted, or that there’s a never-ending stream of indictments around the corner. Just that, given the evidence Fitzgerald has amassed and the lengths everyone has clearly gone to lie about their involvement, the signs point to more indictments, not an end to the story.
Moreover, the press can use these indictments as license to hammer the Bush administration in every press conference. And, if they choose, they can do their own digging into the bigger issue of “Why work so hard to discredit Joe Wilson”, which provides the opening into discussion the rationale for the war itself. Much like Watergate, this crack in the dam provides an opening for the press to run through in investigating everything the Bush administration does.
Ancient Purple
I would surmise that there is also a bit of theatre here for Fitzgerald. From my perspective, he is trying to force a crucible. Now that Libby is indicted, Fitzgerald really has him over a barrel. I am sure that Fitzgerald would cut a deal with him (i.e. plea bargain) in exchange for information that would establish a violation of the IIPA/Espionage Act (remember his press conference spelling out the pitfalls of the lauguage of those laws).
If Libby refused to cooperate and it goes to trial, I am willing to be a week’s pay that the two main witnesses called by the prosecution will be Cheney and Rove. Once those two are under oath in the trial (particularly Cheney), Fitzgerald can get the information he needs.
The only possible fly in the ointment for Fitzgerald would be if Libby pled guilty to all five counts.
I am not sure Libby has the stomach to be that loyal to Cheney or the administration.
HH
Also the blogs who posted wildly inaccurate things in recent weeks about what was going to happen owe their readers an apology.
Paddy O'Shea
The only question now is will Scooter squeal. If Fitzgerald offers Libby a deal in exchange for testimony, well, who knows how far this investigation will go? There certainly is no love lost between the indicted former Cheney Chief of Staff and Karl Rove, either. After all, we do know who squealed first.
I’d say the merry chase has just begun. The clever Mr, Fitzpatrick has sensed the deep fissures with in the White house, and in Mr. Libby he has found his crowbar.
Doug
With respect to NOC status, Josh Marshall has this to offer:
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.
Late Update: To be clear, there are of course support staff of various sorts in the DO. Not everyone is a field operative or a ‘spy’, certainly not in the colloquial sense of the term. But this is the essential difference between these two branches of the agency. These two guy had every reason to know what they were doing.
Slide
A must read on this is Andy McCarthy of National Review Online. No left winger he, and he takes to task his fellow conservatives that are making apologies for Libby and suggesting he didn’t violate the underlying charges. Read the whole thing but here are some interesting snippets:
.
Slide
Will Offical A (Karl Rove) be indicted? Well, take a look at what Fitzgerald said about Governor Ryan (Another one of Fitzgerald’s Offical A) before Ryan got indicted:
But then we have:
I won’t be so confident if I were Karl (Offical A) Rove.
Bob Davis
Karl Rove is either going to testify against Libby in such a way that espionage charges will also be brought, or against someone higher up in the chain (Bush, Cheney) or he will be indicted. He may be indicted or plead guilty as well.
That is my “Prediction for Today”. I also predict that my “Prediction for Tomorrow” will be different.
Barry
Rick Says:
“John,
Any word from Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Oberkommando on when we can roll out the borrowed & adapted talking point—”the partisan Democratic prosecutor set a perjury trap?”
It worked real well for the 1998 inventors.
Cordially…”
Well, let’s see….
Then: Civil suit having nothing to do with the special prosecutor’s investigation was used for that.
Now: Prosecutor’s investigation into a matter brings charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to offials in the course of the investigation of that original matter.
See the difference? The equivalent would be if Clinton perjured himself during testimony about Whitewater, back in 1994 or so.
ppGaz
Excellent work by Slide in this thread.
Down the road, what will be remembered about this case is what the American people got for their investment in trusting these potatoheads. A government that played it straight with the people and acted in the interest of the country, or a government that treated the country as if it were a contest between frat houses, playing pranks and dirty tricks on the opposition in order to gain or keep power?
Figuring out which government you have now is not rocket science. You have the frat-boy government, the one that relishes fucking over its enemies and creating and running a perpetual war for political reasons. One that would play footsie with the identity of an intelligence officer for political purposes. One that would gin up a war on false pretenses, and then joke about it later.
Rick
But hey! Partisan and perjury trap is partisan and perjury trap. Sauce, goose, gander. See the similarity? Especially when the 1990’s goose was rapped for obstruction of justice and suborning perjury.
Think we wingers learned nothing from Lanny Davis?
Cordially…
Gold Star for Robot Boy
If all those bloggers posted their apologies at the same time, the Internet would crash.
ppGaz
Sauce? Yeah, I’d say definitely, you are on the sauce. Either that or you need a complete neurological workup.
Sojourner
Yeh and they both involved perjury about national security.
Wait, that’s not right. How are they similar again?
Chris Johnson
If Rove is indicted that means the process has really stopped. Fitz is ‘dealing up’- holding out the capacity to spare Rove as an inducement to get Rove to rat on- totally sell down the river- higher-ups. I think he’s looking to get either Cheney, Bush himself, or both.
Rove will crack- not even crack, that implies he’d lose control, more like ‘rat on everybody and f**k them completely’- only when he is absolutely convinced that his higher-ups are going to lose all their power, and not before. Until then, it’s business as usual- how can anyone think this guy is going to resign? I don’t believe he has the loyalty that, say, Haldeman had for Nixon. Everyone in that crowd is strictly out for #1…
SLE
Why wouldn’t the most complete resolution to all these issues be obtained by our public officials coming forward voluntarily and making true and complete public statements on what they did and what they know?
Is our society so jaded that we feel we have no right to expect honesty and transparency in our government? Shouldn’t we expect our officials to be willing, even eager to come forward and tell the public the truth of the matter?
This administration has been hiding behind “no comment” long after it became apparent that “no comment” meant “we find it inconvenient and possibly injurious to ourselves to comment”.
I say: defend your good name and your conduct or resign. Full stop.
Steve S
Nice of John to downplay the charges.