Grand Jury Has Been Extended and Expanded

[cnredd]

In regard to the bet I made with Deegan:

I just watched the entire Fitzgerald press conference on C-SPAN today, and although a new grand jury is empaneled to look at other aspects, and although lawyers are saying that the Niger forgery is at the heart of the matter, Fitzgerald, in no uncertain terms, said that this is a secret grand jury, and that he was not going to comment on it until it is finished. According to the terms of the bet I made with Deegan, Fitzgerald had to say something on it, and since he didnt, and isnt going to, look below. LOL.

Told ya, Deegan. I am a man of my word. My avatar and sig belong to you for the next 30 days, ya ********** * **** **** ***** ***** ********* ** ***** ************. LOL.

Personally, I think you should explain WHY in your signature so the other forum members will understand what your signature is referring to...

 

[mike49]

This investigation is continuing only in the sense that if new information becomes available it will be investigated. Do not look for other charges to come about on their own. If after 2 years this is what we have, then this what we have.

I would not even look to these charges as something that will stick. I fully expect Libby to be cleared in the end.

It is interesting to say the least that Libby was not charged with the release of classified information. Clearly they believe the leak originated with him. So, not to charge him is problematic for me. I completely do not understand it as this relates to the obstruction charge. To have an obstruction charge and then not include that very crime which you are being accused of obstructing. Also, leaving out this charge prevents leverage to bring about a plea or to have Libby snitch if you believe he is covering up.

Right now Libby can simply claim he did not remember correctly and with all his job requires, it is not hard to believe that he would not remember things concerning this months and years later. If I was on a jury and wanted to believe Libby I could do so. If the release of classified information where included and I'm on the Jury it would not matter if I believed Libby because he did in fact leak classified information. It's almost a guarenteed conviction.

 

[Binary_Digit]

It is interesting to say the least that Libby was not charged with the release of classified information. Clearly they believe the leak originated with him. So, not to charge him is problematic for me. I completely do not understand it as this relates to the obstruction charge. To have an obstruction charge and then not include that very crime which you are being accused of obstructing.

Libby was not charged with the release of classified information because he supposedly lied about whether he even knew that information at the time. Before charging him with leaking classified information to the press, it's important to establish whether or not he knew that information to begin with. Libby says he didn't, and about 9 sources in the indictment say he did. So this grand jury will decide who is lying, and the decision will influence who eventually gets charged with leaking classified information. Assuming someone does....

 

[mike49]

Binary_Digit,

From the Transcript of Fitzgerald's Press Conf.:

"But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

So, Libby is the one who leaked the information.

I'm not sure what you mean by: "Before charging him with leaking classified information to the press, it's important to establish whether or not he knew that information to begin with." Maybe you can elaborate on that further.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I'm not sure what you mean by: "Before charging him with leaking classified information to the press, it's important to establish whether or not he knew that information to begin with." Maybe you can elaborate on that further.

I meant from a legal point of view. An indictment for releasing classified information would require, among other things, proof that the accused person actually knew the classified information at the time it was supposedly leaked. But Libby contends that he did not know Plame was a CIA agent at the time. For a leak indictment, Fitzgerald will have to be able to prove that Libby did know. It seems the way he'll prove it is with the testemony of Judith Miller, and maybe other reporters.

But if Fitzgerald is unable to prove this, then Libby will walk, and any indictment now would be a wasted effort then. So instead of counting chickens before they're hatched, so to speak, he wants to establish this legal premise first, that Libby did in fact learn of Plame's identity before he claims to have. <-- This sentence is purely my non-legal-expert opinion, I don't know that for a fact!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Binary_Digit,
From the Transcript of Fitzgerald's Press Conf.:

"But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."
​

So, Libby is the one who leaked the information.

This doesn't necessarily follow, because of this word, "known." As in "Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter." The implication being that it's possible an official told a reporter and it is not known who that official is.

 

[mike49]

I meant from a legal point of view. An indictment for releasing classified information would require, among other things, proof that the accused person actually knew the classified information at the time it was supposedly leaked. But Libby contends that he did not know Plame was a CIA agent at the time. For a leak indictment, Fitzgerald will have to be able to prove that Libby did know. It seems the way he'll prove it is with the testemony of Judith Miller, and maybe other reporters.

But if Fitzgerald is unable to prove this, then Libby will walk, and any indictment now would be a wasted effort then. So instead of counting chickens before they're hatched, so to speak, he wants to establish this legal premise first, that Libby did in fact learn of Plame's identity before he claims to have. <-- This sentence is purely my non-legal-expert opinion, I don't know that for a fact!

I don't think anyone is imagining that Libby did not know that Plame was a C.I.A. Agent. He talked to the C.I.A. and several others before talking to reporters. Matter how you look at it, intent, we all know what the intent was...to attack the story being put forth by Wilson. It wasn't personal it was business. This was politics.


Simon W. Moon,

"This doesn't necessarily follow, because of this word, "known." As in "Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter." The implication being that it's possible an official told a reporter and it is not known who that official is."

The baseball analogy is odd in that saying he did not know Libby's intent. Everyone know's Libby's intent. And, this whole "Leaking of classified information" in this context, in this particular instance, is not illegal. Fitzgerald spoke of his displeasure of the leak in the strongest terms, but did not indict.

The "known" is what we have after two years. Fitzgerald is comfortable with this "known". He did not indict Libby, he will not indict on another possible "known".

My main point is, and this goes to critics of the Administration...do not expect anything other than a trial for Libby. If Fitzgerald wanted more he would have indicted on the release of classified information charge. It would have provided leverage and he would have almost been assured a conviction in the case. By not indicting on this charge he has effectively ended the case.

This particular leak does not rise, in Fitzgeralds eyes, to an indictable offense.

He tries to cover himself by bringing the obstruction charge. Giving the impression that if there was no obstruction he may have been able to bring the other charge...but in bringing the obstruction charge you must have evidence and know what the obstruction is. He is like a dog chasing his tail. He knows the whole story already.

As time moves forward and the excitement the Democrats have over this ends, you will see them taking a very good look at what we actually have here. And, what we have here is a very unstable case where a Juror can simply believe that Libby had a faulty memory...and this case is over.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The baseball analogy is odd in that saying he did not know Libby's intent. Everyone know's Libby's intent.

I don't.

And, this whole "Leaking of classified information" in this context, in this particular instance, is not illegal.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. Just because Fitz didn't make the charge doesn't mean that something illegal didn't happen. People have been charged in leaks of classified info that were lesser than this.

This particular leak does not rise, in Fitzgeralds eyes, to an indictable offense.

Which is a different, but often overlapping, category of offenses than ones that are not illegal.

He tries to cover himself by bringing the obstruction charge.

To call it merely a 'cover' charge is to imply that he should have ignored evidence of perjury, false statements, and obstruction.
If someone commits perjury, makes false statements, and obstructs the investigation, it would seem that the prosecutor has an obligation and a duty to pursue charges.

Giving the impression that if there was no obstruction he may have been able to bring the other charge...but in bringing the obstruction charge you must have evidence and know what the obstruction is. He is like a dog chasing his tail. He knows the whole story already.

He may well. Yet, what one knows and what one can prove are not necessarily the same thing.

And, what we have here is a very unstable case where a Juror can simply believe that Libby had a faulty memory...and this case is over.

If the dates in the indictment are accurate, if the transcriptions of the testimony are accurate, it would seem that Libby's got a very tight hole to wriggle out of.
He had conversations re the Wilsons about twice a week for a month. Three months later, when he was questioned by the FBI, not only does he 'forget' the month's worth of conversations re the Wilsons, he remembers things about his conversations with other folks that these other folks have no recollection of.

Have you read the indictment yet?

 

[mike49]

Simon W. Moon,

I have read the indictment, and have read the transcript of the news conference. This is where I am getting the basis for my posts.

I'm not trying to limit the indictment, and I do believe Libby is in serious jeopardy. My comments mainly go to future events. And, those future events will not include further indictments...unless new information becomes available.

I also believe Libby will be cleared.

Why don't you know Libby's intent? Read the Novak column.

The intent was to attack the Wilson story.

Wilson's story was political and the leak was political.

This was politics hardball style.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I don't think anyone is imagining that Libby did not know that Plame was a C.I.A. Agent.

Libby is "imagining" it - that's precisely what he is accused of lying about. He testified under oath to the grand jury that he didn't know Plame was a CIA agent when he talked to Russert and Miller.

The fact that Fitzgerald has only 1 indictment, and not for leaking, means nothing. Robert Novak's infamous report specifically said "two senior administration officials told me...", so unless he's lying, two people need to be indicted for leaking to the press.

As for whether or not a crime has actually been committed, I can't imagine a scenario where revealing Plame's identity would not be a crime. Her exposure also revealed the CIA front company and all the agents who worked there undercover with her. Obviously, the Deputy Attourney General believed a crime had been committed when he assigned Fitzgerald as special prosecutor 2 years ago.

The reason Fitzgerald doesn't have an indictment on leaking classified information is because Libby won't tell the truth in his investigation, and thus Fitzgerald can't get enough solid evidence to convict someone of such a high-profile crime. Yet. The results of Libby's trial will determine who eventually gets indicted for leaking to the press. If justice be done, and Novak is telling the truth, then there will be at least 2 indictments.

 

[danarhea]

This doesn't necessarily follow, because of this word, "known." As in "Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter." The implication being that it's possible an official told a reporter and it is not known who that official is.

Of course, it is not known who the leaker is because Libby was obstructing the investigation. Thats why the obstruction of justice charge.

 

[mike49]

Libby is "imagining" it - that's precisely what he is accused of lying about. He testified under oath to the grand jury that he didn't know Plame was a CIA agent when he talked to Russert and Miller.

The fact that Fitzgerald has only 1 indictment, and not for leaking, means nothing. Robert Novak's infamous report specifically said "two senior administration officials told me...", so unless he's lying, two people need to be indicted for leaking to the press.

As for whether or not a crime has actually been committed, I can't imagine a scenario where revealing Plame's identity would not be a crime. Her exposure also revealed the CIA front company and all the agents who worked there undercover with her. Obviously, the Deputy Attourney General believed a crime had been committed when he assigned Fitzgerald as special prosecutor 2 years ago.

The reason Fitzgerald doesn't have an indictment on leaking classified information is because Libby won't tell the truth in his investigation, and thus Fitzgerald can't get enough solid evidence to convict someone of such a high-profile crime. Yet. The results of Libby's trial will determine who eventually gets indicted for leaking to the press. If justice be done, and Novak is telling the truth, then there will be at least 2 indictments.

So, what you are saying is Fitzgerald can't bring the charge until after the trial when Libby is convicted? Because Libby does not admit something? When did this happen...that first the criminal must be convicted of perjury before bringing what he lied about to trial? Everyone denies the crime before trial. Everyone lies to the Grand Jury if they are guilty of a crime. I see no basis for your thinking here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post. If Libby is not telling the truth now and the prosecutor knows this, then the prosecutor must know the truth. Otherwise how can he tell someone is lying? And, if he knows the truth than he can bring the other charge.

If you wish to believe that this is going to lead somewhere else and is part of some grand strategy, then it is your right to do so.

I hold another view.

One of us will be correct....probably.

 

[Middleground]

This was politics hardball style.

Wow, how very nonchalant.

So revealing classified information to the public is "hardball?" How about going after the target's wife, instead of the taget himself... is that "hardball" too?

Me, I'd say something more closely to "scum-sucking, back-stabbin', cowardly, self-serving, career wrecking morans."

But hey, that's just me. And frankly, I don't know how ANYONE can jusify the actions of the two who leaked the information. Strip down all the excuses, and common sense with guide you to the truth.

 

[oldreliable67]

As for whether or not a crime has actually been committed, I can't imagine a scenario where revealing Plame's identity would not be a crime. Her exposure also revealed the CIA front company and all the agents who worked there undercover with her.

I'm under the impression that the front company was listed at an address in Boston (www.washingtonpost.com). Except that there was no business in the buildings directory by that name: there were no offices, no employees, no nothing. Hard to work there when there ain't no 'there'.

Check the statute, if you haven't already. It isn't clear at all that there was a crime commited. The statute says that the agent has to be covert (arguable as to whether or she was covert) and the the agent's life must be put in danger as a result of the 'outing' (hard to imagine her being in fear of her life when she subsequently permits her picture to be on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine).

 

[Archon]

Under the veil of such a secret investigation and relative suppositions... regardless of the outcome of libby's case... I don't see this going much further. However I do believe that no matter what happens the American People will never be "privvy" to the "entire" truth in this matter. That within itself is a loss to the people in my opinion, not the partisans.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Check the statute, if you haven't already. It isn't clear at all that there was a crime commited.

FYI: There's more than one statute that relates to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

For example:


Bush's Unofficial Official Secrets Act

...in 1971 the Nixon Justice Department ... tried to invoke the theft statute... ...the government charged agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with using DEA information to set up a drug operation of their own.

... the Reagan Justice Department saw fit to ... invoke the 1917 Espionage Act and the general theft statute to prosecute a leak of government information. ...the government procured a conviction under both statutes.

The government argued the case came within the theft statute because it reaches the unlawful disposition of "any record ... or thing of value" of the United States. The government argued that even intangible information was a "thing of value," and the federal district and appellate courts agreed.

...[the Fourth Circuit] reiterated that information could be a "thing of value" that could be stolen, and held - invoking the 1971 drug case precedent - that it ... was applicable.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is making good on his word to aggressively prosecute leaks...

...Jonathan Randal [sic], an intelligence research specialist ...of the DEA.

...the London Times ... had DEA documents showing that [Lord Michael Ashcroft (no relation)] was index-numbered on the DEA files, a measure that, it said, is taken only when serious suspicions exist.

...Randal [sic] had leaked [the DEA documents] to a ... journalist who was investigating Lord Ashcroft...
[U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, William Duffey Jr.] ...confronted Randal [sic] with a twenty-count indictment.
Count One [was] based on the general theft statute - with information, once again, alleged to be the "thing of value" stolen.

U.S. Attorney Duffey [said] he was pleased with the sentence - and saw the prosecution of Randal as "a warning to other government workers."

For sentencing purposes... the value of the information ... was up to $70,000...

The information was not classified. It did not compromise any investigator, investigation, or investigative method.
​

It Appears That Karl Rove Is In Serious Trouble

[United States District Court Judge Richard Story said at Randel's sentencing] ...that he [Randel] surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country."

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held."

[Judge Story said] "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense."
​

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT
Section 641. Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word ''value'' means face, par, or market value, or cost
price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
​