Comments on: The Questions Not Asked

by: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:34:04 +0000

Wilson: There Have Been Threats

In his first interview since the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Joe Wilson tells Ed Bradley that ther

by: John Bambenek

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:59:27 +0000

You apparently don’t have much knowledge of how intelligence works. Being married to an ambassador would be viewed as being way to close to government connections, no one would trust it, except possibly in the case of fishing out a double-cross which isn’t what she was in the business of.

by: Denny Hix

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:56:20 +0000

Two possible reasons the outing issue never came up today:

First, like most white collar crime, it’s hard to prove. Prosecutors usually go after an easier prosecution that will result in similar punishment.

Libby’s looking at 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. That’s a stiffer sentence than he would have gotten for breaking the CIA identities law.

Second, in item 21 of the indictment, you’ll see mentioned an unnamed “Senior White House official,” referred to in the indictment as “Official A.” This person is the one who leaked where it counted. He’s the one who mentioned to Libby that he’d talked to Bob Novak and that Novak would be running a column soon about Plame’s identity.

This is the leak that actually counts. None of the people Libby told ever published the information. That makes it hard to prove she was outed when only one or two people without security clearances were told. But the Novak column was read by — hundreds. OK, dozens. Anyway, it was syndicated all around the country.

Official A is most likely Karl Rove. We know that Rove’s lawyers have been working on a plea bargin in the case since Tuesday. Very likely, Rove will agree to plead to a lesser charge to get out of the number of counts Libby got hit with.

As far as her marriage to Wilson…that wouldn’t identify her as a CIA agent. The CIA maintained a cover for her as an “energy consultant or analyst.” That allowed her to get into areas and make contacts with people who knew about nuclear fuel and production (she worked for the CIA’s nonproliferation office).

CIA agents are commonly given covers as diplomats. But being married to a diplomat wouldn’t be any less of a cover blower than being a high ranking officer at the US Embassy somewhere. In fact, a business woman married to an ambassador might be a better cover in some cases.

by: John Bambenek

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:48:58 +0000

I heard Fitz’s explanation and I found it unconvincing, especially when he explained how Libby was the first in the phone chain and that he talked of “vindicating the interests” to explain away not charging him with the actual crime but the cover-up. I heard it, I’m just not buying.

by: Planet Moron

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:45:34 +0000

Fitzgerald explained that he did not charge Libby with the underlying crime because in order to do so, under the statute, you have to be able to prove that he did so knowingly (among other things). Fitzgerald could not prove that because, he charges, Libby lied, “threw sand in the umpire’s face” as he analogized.

Regarding Plame’s “cover,” it’s irrelevant what we think. If her employment was officially “classified” it was officially classified. That would be a point of fact (if true). I don’t think you want Libby, or you, or I making that judgment on our own.

None of this is to say that Libby is guilty of anything. We’ll have to wait and see. But if the allegations are true, if Libby walked into a grand jury room, swore an oath before God and country to tell the truth, and then didn’t, he’s got a problem.