Since Ms. Plame was indeed covert at the time that Armitage outed her, I'm curious why there were no charges brought against him? I understand that Libby tried to cover-up and his lies would have obstructed the investigation - but I've not heard explicitly stated that Libby prevented charges from being brought against xyz. (likely Cheney).

Why wouldn't Armitage be criminally liable for his actions? I think the absence of charges for the original outing is the exculpatory talking point ... It's my understanding that Plame's covert status was removed the day after her outing - does that have an effect?

thanks,

Jack

While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson 15 included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. On the other hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could be prosecuted in a relatively straightforward trial. As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2006), “insofar as false testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification of culprits, perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications. What’s more, because the charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame’s exposure, prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.”

shooter: I haven't read the letters yet,

Of course you haven't ... and you never will. Or if you do, you won't admit it.

but ask yourself these questions...

* IF the CIA was sure she was covert why was a criminal referral necessary?

Because the CIA has no law enforcement capability. Federal law enforcement is a function of the Justice Department. Hence the CIA asked the DOJ to invesitgate.

* Why did Fitzgerald avoid the covert aspect by stating he wouldn't address it.

Because the issue was irrelevant to the indictment. Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice; covert status and even whether there was an underlying crime are irrelevant. Prosecutors do not waste their time proving more than they have to to establish the elements of the offense.

* Why wouldn't the current CIA director testify under oath that she was covert?

Why should he? If a case had been brought against someone for outing a covert agent, he probably would have, but Libby's obstruction prevented the determination of whether a case could be brought.

* But mainly, why bring it up now regarding Libby's sentencing but not at trial? Libby wasn't convicted for ANYTHING regarding Plame's status, it wasn't a factor. But here is the prosecutor trying to present something he couldn't prove in court as evidence?

The level of your ignorance is simply stultifying. After a conviction, the defense is allowed to present matters in extenuation and mitigation, such as character witnesses or affidavits or other extenuating circumstances, and the prosecution is allowed to present matters in aggravation. Such matters may not be allowed to be introduced in evidence in the trial (for instance, matters in aggravation may include prior convictions for the same or similar offenses — not allowed during the trial phase but permitted during the sentencing phase).

It like getting a speeding ticket and when you go to court and plead guilty, the prosecutor tells the judge they also think your car is stolen so they should give you jail time.

No, it is like pleading guilty to speeding and having the prosecutor point out that the speeding was doing 60 mph in a school zone with children present. This is a matter in aggravation of the offense. Whether the vehicle was stolen or not is not relevant to the speeding offense. What the prosecutor is pointing out here is that if the CIA agent outed was covert then the obstruction of justice and perjury may have blocked the prosecution of a felony under 50 US Code. This is a matter in aggravation. Plame's status wasn't an issue in the trial, but Plame's status is a fact, attested by DCI, so it is a matter in aggravation for sentencing.

If this isn't misconduct by a prosecutor, it should be.

Ignorance is one thing; everybody is ignorant about some things, such as procedural jurisprudence. But such pride in willful ignorance is simply beyond comprehension.

Lest we forget, Dear Freddy has decided to enter the presidential race. Freddy was:

a. Head of Scooter's Defense Fund

b. Helped sheppard Roberts nomination through Congress and

c. May be retaining the services of Tim Griffin (Rove's Oppo Research fellow and handpicked replacement USA in Arkansas)

Your clear quote is appreciated -

Jack

I've been thinking for a while that Fitzgerald is in a bit of a conundrum because of the evidence he received in this case. He received much of Rove's email and I think it is entirely possible that in addition to the Plame evidence, he also has evidence on the US Attorney case. However, with the changes to the special prosecutor law (please, someone who understands the legal issues of the new law provide some insight) it's not clear how he can move this information to the proper investigative body. Note that the White House is still thumbing its nose at Leahy on this and seems to have "lost" the emails it sent to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is careful and may be biding his time to make sure that his case doesn't compromise another.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you've got to get his new book The Assault on Reason. As the title suggests, it confronts the entire panoply of speciousness and mendacity that has consumed the nation for the past five or so years.

It's loaded with not only recent examples of manipulation, fear-mongering, and power-grabbing, but also great quotes from the founders on how much importance they placed on an informed and rational public debate.