It means he's keeping his options open -- indictments, plea deals, the works.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 18, 2005 10:24 PMI don't know where these people are getting the idea that he might lack the power to issue a report. My understanding was that a report, rather than indictments, is always an option. Innocent people who have been wrongly accused, after all, deserve some sort of statement that puts the public's mind to rest. [insert broad wink]
At any rate, this recurring motif that lawyers connected to the case keep saying "Fitzgerald has not made any decision about indictments" is meaningless. He keeps saying that because any given subject of the inquiry could alter his/her status by flipping, right up until the moment that indictments come down.
Fret not. Indictments will ensue.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 18, 2005 10:49 PMSo here's my question...
The original act calls into question exposing a covert agent as a covert agent. However, when I read the words in Robret Novak's column all it says is that Valerie was an 'agent' of the CIA. The key word 'covert' was not part of this and just like my insurance agent being an agent revealing her current employment status isn't illegal if it's public. The key is at the time she was listed as an 'agent' she was publicly working for the CIA.
The preceding is why there won't be an indictment of someone on the Identity Protection Act. Fact is Valeries status as an agent who had been covert wasn't known by nor revealed by the Bush admin or Novak's column, but was revealed in response to the column because others jumped the gun.
This means the prosecutor is essentially left with potentially being able to press other chargers such as perjury, but even then it's probably difficult to prove that some of the omissions were in fact meant as deception.
The result is that the prosecutor may or may not release an indictment (note if the Identity Protection Act had been violated there wouldn't be a question on bringing charges against someone, since the act allows for punishment even of those who do not hold security clearances (this is noted in part c of the act "Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and..." Given this if the crime had been committed then someone would be going to jail for it whether it was a reporter who knowingly published that information or someone who could be traced as the source. (FWIW, the covert status was most likely revealed after Joe Wilson misinterpreted the amount that was known to Novak and others, and in that case it wouldn't meet the requirements of ...seeking to impair or impede intelligence activities of the Unitied States since the source thought the information had been exposed - or could at least claim such since they (presumably JW) didn't want to go on the record even then.)
The key here is that it is very possible that the only thing which will come out of the investigation publicly is a very short report that has about 1 paragraph, the gist of which is something like: After interviewing the witnesses and those who were found to be involved in the events surrounding Valerie Plame's exposure; there is no evidence that anyone violated the Identity Protection Act.
So at this point you are pretty much left hoping for things like obstruction of justice and perjury but lets face it even on the best case you are not looking at major indictments.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 12:00 AMI believe that Ms. Plame was referred to by Bob Novak as an "agency operative", not an agent.
Posted by onthestory at October 19, 2005 12:21 AMonthestory - correct.
in fact the full description Novak used was: "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." not the use of the word "is" vs. "was" the key is the article didn't mention or insinuate her activities prior to 2002. It only references activities after she had completed all covert operations (that we know of) and was publicly working for the CIA - thus Novak didn't 'expose' that portion of her career and in fact probably wasn't even aware of it.
not = note
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 12:51 AMThe Covert Agent Identity Protection Act (United States Code Title 50,Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421) protects the identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources. Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not include the language"exposing a covert agent as a covert agent". Paragraph (c) does include the language "identifies an individual as a covert agent". Identifying an individual that the "United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal" as a CIA agent effectively violates the act. If Ms. Wilson was not a covert agent the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal , the CIA investigation request would not have been granted (especially in a Bush Justice Department)
The act states that:
Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States
The Covert Agent Identity Protection Act comes from United States Code Title 50 (War and National Defense), Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter IV (Protection of Certain National Security Information), Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources, according to FindLaw.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html) (U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01.)
The Act
Although the act is identified as the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982," its short title is the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act":
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information. Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents. Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences. A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment."
Posted by smooth at October 19, 2005 01:41 AMSteve,
No report=lots of indictments.
The reporters on Hardball last night were saying that Fitz is trying to decide how many indictments to issue right now. That's the reason for the delay.
Posted by Ga6thDem at October 19, 2005 04:56 AMWonder if that Times source was Ms. Run Amok herself of one of her sources from the WH like Libby aka "sources close to the investigation"...he and the wh are certainly close to the investigation.
Posted by at October 19, 2005 05:02 AMgiven the potential in a wide investigation (which is what we've been led to believe Fitz is doing) to destroy the Bush government and with it America's international reputation (what Bush hasn't already destroyed), I find it hard to think any Prosecutor would put that load upon his shoulders. It would definitely give him a place in history, but one that most would not want to have. For this reason, I think that indictments that punish the most grievous crooks may be forthcoming, but a complete report detailing the full, across the board deception and corruptness of the Bush Administration's entry into the Iraq War may be held back. The public can read between the lines. 65% of us already have.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2005 07:01 AMThe public can read between the lines. 65% of us already have.
It's tough to say how many members of the public have read between the lines. One can clearly see evidence of people who know exactly what BushCo did that will get them indicted, and don't care. Such people, after all, visit TLC daily.
Also, I'd say that only a tiny fraction of the disillusionment with BushCo stems from the lies that gave us the war. People have come to the conclusion that Bush is a lousy president for all sorts of reasons, and the reasons keep on coming.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 19, 2005 07:18 AMThe impression I've gotten from the admittedly flaccid MSM is that no report = charges are gonna come down.
He can issue a report after the trials, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh yeah...here's a prophylactic "FUCK YOU" to j.pest, cyber pussy, and fuckdog: You can all kiss my ass and burn in hell. That statement stands until further notice.
OutsideTheEchoChamber, you are missing a key fact, which relates to this, what you said here is wrong:
The key is at the time she was listed as an 'agent' she was publicly working for the CIA.
You are wrong on this. Her name was not a secret. Her marriage to Joe Wilson was not a secret. Her existence as a human being known to her neighbors, friends and family was not a secret.
Her job, working for the CIA, WAS a secret. She had a cover and everything. It was NOT public that she worked for the CIA. She was NOT "publicly working for the CIA." That was a secret, revealed by literal traitors to this country working in the White House, such as the vice president.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 19, 2005 07:45 AM5{ the public realizes Bush "misrepresented" in the Iraq sales job, and nobody likes being lied to. I think, as we careen toward 2000 Dead GI's in Iraq this week or next, the poetic day for Fitz to indict some of the crooks would be on the day the 2000th American gives his life for Bush's lies. Think of it, Bush has killed 2/3 as many Americans as Al Queda did on 9/11.
Posted by T2 at October 19, 2005 07:57 AMThunderHawk, I have gone through great pains not to level personal attacks on anyone at this website. I prefer to keep our discussion above a level found on a six-grade playground. I have found it to be true in almost every situation that when people degrade to name-calling they really have lost the argument and are reaching for straws. Have you no better argument other than foul language? Yes I can tell you to “Fuck off”, to go screw your mother AGAIN, to go back to chickens/goats, or choke on your tofu burger while getting plowed by a gorilla. But I won’t allow you to bring me down to that level. Before you start your snoopy happy dance with regard to the Fitzgerald probe, I would wait until he comes out with or without indictments. I was positively giddy when Clinton was investigated by Star and greatly anticipated his departure from the oval office. I was really thrown for a loop when there were no criminal charges on the whitewater portion but charges of the President got a hummer from the fat girl. “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.” – Forrest Gump
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 19, 2005 08:05 AMMy statement stands.
You people have done enough harm to America. Piss off.
Posted by thunderhawk at October 19, 2005 08:10 AMBrian Bell - Your respons supports my conclusions with the understanding that her past job as a covert agent was secret - however the job she was in when she reccomended Joe for the trip, which was the same job she was in when Novak ran his story was not. His story doesn't reference what she was doing in 2000 when officially she wasn't working with the agency, as noted in the act which Smooth added to this thread - you have to 'knowingly expose a covert agent' if you just point out someone currently working in an unclasified role for the CIA without knowing that in the past they were covert you have not broken the law.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 08:23 AMbtw, I will not be surprised if indictments for perjury, obstruction of justice etc. were released.
Also note if you wanted to pressure people to flip - you would say that you hadn't decided 'WHICH indictments to make' not 'IF indictments would be made.'
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 08:25 AMI was positively giddy when Clinton was investigated by Star and greatly anticipated his departure from the oval office. I was really thrown for a loop when there were no criminal charges on the whitewater portion but charges of the President got a hummer from the fat girl.
So you were giddy that a president was going to be removed from office over a questionable real estate deal that took place before he entered office? How bizarre. And that had nothing to do with the fact that you disagreed with his politics?
Posted by snark at October 19, 2005 08:25 AM...however the job she was in when she reccomended Joe for the trip...
Has it been determined that she "recommended Joe for the trip"? It's my understanding that she attended an introductory meeting, to introduce Joe Wilson to the people at the agency that he would be dealing with after he had been selected to make the trip. Has it been demonstrated that she had some other involvement in actually getting him the gig? Honestly.
Posted by Tim at October 19, 2005 08:30 AMOTEC, you're right about how hard it is to convict under the IIPA, and also that indictments for perjury or obstruction are more likely, but you forgot the Espionage Act, which is easier to prove than IIPA.
Posted by benjoya at October 19, 2005 08:37 AMbenjoya - Yeah there could definitely be a prosecution for exposing classified information.... especially for Libby. It probably won't be Plame's information, but evidence of an unrelated act may have been found in the investigation - especially as it concerns the Libby - Miller relationship.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 08:46 AMOutsideTheEchoChamber, what I said does not help your argument at all. It REFUTES what you are saying.
You are WRONG. Don't you get it? Her working for the CIA was NEVER public in any way shape or form prior to Novak's column. Her working for the CIA in any capacity was a state secret. As far as everyone was concerned but those who were supposed to know, she worked for Bryant Jennings and Associates or whatever the name of the front company was. When Joe Wilson went on his trip to Niger, it was a secret that his wife worked for the CIA. It was not supposed to be public. She was NEVER just an analyst at the CIA, even after she was brought back or came back to D.C., her status was still covert. Her work was secret. Why do you think there's a grand jury investigation? Doh!
You know, it really doesn't matter if you Republicans ever understand this. Fitz understands this, and the grand jury understands this, and the White House understands this, which is why they are scared crapless and busy lawyering up right now.
When some of the White House administration are hauled off to the slammer for hard time or death sentences for treason, OutsideTheEchoChamber, feel free to refer back to this post to understand what happened.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 19, 2005 09:21 AMIf I am a member of an organization or government Ms. Wilson covertly infiltrated and I find out that she works for the CIA, these traitors have identified her as a covert agent. The act makes no mention of past or present assignments. The new assignment is meaningless if the infiltrated group wants to retaliate against her. They won't kill her since she has a new assignment now? These traitors violated the act and put Ms. Wilson's and many of her co-workers (that are working to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction) at risk.
Posted by smooth at October 19, 2005 09:23 AMOutside,
You need to stand back and look at the big picture.
If Mrs. Wilson's identity was not a grave secret and her exposure was not a severe blow to our national security, then the three judges who have been involved in this case would not have permitted Fitzgerald to interview the president and vice president. They would not have thrown Judy in jail. In fact, the case would have never been recommended to the justice department by the CIA in the first place. These judges have been playing with political fire for two years now. If the exposure of Mrs. Wilson was not a deadly serious and highly illegal blow to out national security, this case would have been buried long ago.
All of the evidence that I have seen so far strongly suggests that perjury is going to be least of Rove, Scooter and Dick's problems when the indictments come down.
It just blows me away that these people will defend an administration that obviously damaged national security, destroyed the US's credibility in the world, undermined our military to the point that we couldn't respond to local disasters, etc. and yet still get irate over a blow job. It's all okay, as long as they don't go to jail for it, right? Well, how about someone who murders your family, but is never caught? Is that okay too?
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 09:47 AMSmooth - let me start with you. The error in your logic is that it presumes everyone who works at the CIA has been a covert agent. Not true, the fact that she previously worked for a shell company was her previous job, now that she took a job with the CIA that didn't expose her previous employer or her role.
Brian & Growth - you and I can argue all day about whether her new position was classified or not. AFAIK it wasn't classified, and even Joe Wilson has admited that.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 09:53 AMiamcoyote - Not sure where you are going with that... and be careful on assuming what I believe with regard to Clinton harassing junior employees (it's not about the blowjob) or your opinion of current admin.
If you badly want to punish the person who made it public that Valerie Plame had been a covert agent, then Joe Wilson should be punished - since he is the one who made that aspect of her role with the CIA public. It's OK with me, but I don't see the value of pursuing it as I don't think he violated the spirit of the law and think a conviction would be difficult.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 10:07 AMOutside
I am not assuming that all CIA agents are covert.
You are missing the point that this law protects assets from being exposed to people that will know they are covert because of their interactions with them. If the infiltrated organization exposed information to her as a front company representative and finds out that she is CIA, they now know she is not only CIA, they know she is a covert agent.
Looks like outside is missing a heckova lotta points today.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 19, 2005 10:20 AMReport or not, I think I read that the witnesses or indictees are able to ask for transcripts of the proceedings. Or maybe Fitz is able to ask the Judge to open the record. Or some combination of the two.
If the entire GJ record eventually becomes public, why wouldn't that be sufficient for history?
Posted by Libby Sosume at October 19, 2005 10:27 AMMy level of suspense has gone down to zero. Sure, there may not be a report. But the same article says that a target letter has gone out. That means there is one guaranteed indictment, unless that guy is willing to help the prosecutor secure more indictments. Even if Hannah won't play ball, I suspect Fitz has stuff to work with.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 19, 2005 11:24 AMThe public can read between the lines. 65% of us already have.
After the 3 debates, and the election results, I think we have to question whether a large segment of the public reads at all. Many, like Bush himself, get their information and views in pre-packaged, easily digestible, verbal form from charismatic spin doctors.
Posted by obsessed at October 19, 2005 11:25 AMYup I thought it was kewl that Star was investigating a Democrat President for shady dealings while he was the Governor of Arkansas. Talk about looking guilty! A key man in the Administration up and commits suicide, files are lost and then found in the First Ladies office, and a business partner goes to jail for not testifying? What was not to like? I had such high hopes, but then all we got was a stained dress and a neutered President. But then it really gave Hillary a mandate to move to New York and become a Senator. They could not possibly go back to Arkansas after all the scandals.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 19, 2005 11:33 AMdj, actually the article doesn't reference a target letter - it still just says that he hasn't decided to file any indictments.
iamcoyote - not missing anything noone is providing evidence that Valerie wasn't an in an unclas position when she was referenced as an active CIA employee.
smooth - you are correct - if they know she is covert which she wasn't or if they knew she had recently been covert which there is every reason to believe they didn't - then there would be a case however since these two scenarios don't seem to apply - no indictments related to using her name as a current employee of the CIA.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 19, 2005 11:36 AMInsidetheIgnoranceChamber---
You're wasting a lot of space and time today.
You have no response to Growth Factor, who has demolished your long-put-to-rest "arguments".
It's great you want to participate, but you must get a clue when your positions have been utterly refuted.
Posted by euzoius at October 19, 2005 12:07 PMRegarding the possibility of a "report" being released. It seems to me that this shouldn't be the Special Prosecutor's role. He may have the powers of the AG, but he's not an independant counsel. It's a subtle but distinct difference. If we are going to get some kind of "Federal shield law" we need to restore the independent counsel statute as well, or we are royally fucked.
It is rightly Congresses role to call for a complete investigation into the charges raised by Fitzgerald (if there are any). Then let Congress issue a report, or appoint some body to do it for them.
Friday the 28th is when I think the word will come. Why would Fitzgerald not use every minute allotted to him, and perhaps more? After all the case was stalled for over a year due to the legal wrangling based on bogus First Amendment concerns. He's got a lot of lost time to make up for. When Fitz is spotted in DC, I'll listen to the rumour mill.
Posted by mrblifil at October 19, 2005 12:23 PMOutside-
Let me join in. Are you paid to persist in arguing long past the point of having lost? You're like the place kicker who misses the game winner at the end of regulation, who nevertheless stays out on the field kicking do-overs until the grounds crew asks him politely to leave the stadium.
When Plame was a NOC, if she was a NOC, is irrelevant. Her cover as a NOC extended past her to others at the agency and abroad. In outing her they outed many associates. It may be too early to know if the CAIPA law was violated, but whatever they did in outing her was not good and at the very least constituted compromising classified information in violation of their oaths of office.
Posted by mrblifil at October 19, 2005 12:29 PMOTEC: dj, actually the article doesn't reference a target letter - it still just says that he hasn't decided to file any indictments.
Shit, you're right. It's a different article. Whatever. Your team is going down, and going down ignominiously. Enjoy the ride.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 19, 2005 04:27 PMplaying catch-up is not much fun (having missed a day reading here) but I really enjoyed this thread ;)
I like euzoius' new name for OTEC. It fits.
Posted by dorita at October 19, 2005 05:28 PMWhwn I see the initals OTEC, I rhink of OPEC. Either way, it's an unpleasent experence.
Posted by argus at October 19, 2005 08:39 PMYeah I don't want to waste too much time here... but you might want to read this... How Covert Was Valerie Plame?
btw, while I fully expect at least 1 indictment from the investigation I'd put $20 on that indictment not being for 'outing' Valerie Plame.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at October 21, 2005 11:22 PM