Am I wrong, or is this the first public indication that Libby's actions (the leak) were "authorized by his superiors"? Maybe I'm having a memory blank here. As I recall, the Libby indictment says that Cheney told Libby Plame's identity (technically not a crime, both had clearance to know it), but NOT that Cheney authorized the leak of that info. ??? Right? In fact, that's what Libby is covering up.
QUESTION FOR BR_Parkway: Do you know the provenance of this OP, or of the various docs at
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Court_filings_shed_more_light_on_0202.html ?
Is this OP a leak? From Libby's lawyer? Is it a public document? (Rawstory just says it was "released" and hadn't been noticed by the corporate news monopolies.) What about the other sources at Rawstory? (For instance, "astute bloggers" discovering that Wilson won't be testifying, and that another Time reporter (Dickerson, now of Slate) is involved?) I'm just trying to gage what-all's going on here behind the scenes.
----------------------------
Quote from Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyer (from the OP above)):
"We expect that such conduct (that Libby was authorized to leak Nat'l Intel Estimate-NEI info by his superiors) will be the subject of proof at trial in that we intend to introduce Libby's grand jury transcript in evidence and Mr. Libby has testified that the purpose of his July 8 meeting with Ms. Miller was to transmit infonnation concerning the NIE. OUf anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain. At this timeJ we do not intend to offer the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b)."
Depending on how you interpret "such conduct" in the first sentence, it could mean that Fitzgerald is going to nail Libby's superiors (the most obvious Cheney and Bush) in the Libby trial, but is not "at this time" charging Libby with the Plame leak. There are not many other ways to interpret "such conduct" (it follows directly from the sentence above it--that the conduct in question is that of Libby's superiors). And (implication of the final sentence of the paragraph) Fitzgerald is NOT going let Libby's lawyers see what evidence he has against Libby's superiors BECAUSE he is not currently charging Libby with the leak. (--i.e., no one authorized or ordered Libby to commit perjury or obstruct justice, so far as we know--the "authorization" at issue in this case was of the Plame leak itself, and WHO authorized it is the reason for perjury/obstruction coverup that Libby is guilty of. This OTHER "authorization by his superiors"--of NEI info--is related, perhaps is contextual, or is yet another crime. (Was NEI classified?) Possible upshot: If Libby's leaks were "authorized," generally, why didn't he also get the Plame leak authorized, and, if he did, who authorized it? This is the "obstruction" that Libby is charged with--covering up who authorized it.
This, a) certainly does point to Cheney and Bush as the most culpable perps; b) indicates a wide ranging investigation (why would the Prez and VP of the United States put a CIA agent's life, the lives of her entire covert network, in jeopardy?*); c) puts pressure on Libby to disclose more (sounds like Fitz already has a case to charge Libby directly for the leak--why isn't he doing so? (obvious answer, because higher ups were involved, and he wants more evidence on them from Libby.) (He said in his Libby press conference that Libby was obstructing him from answering the question "why was this leaked?," and the relevance of "why" to nat' security--which he said was his main pursuit).
--------------------
Questions:
*1/ This question just occurred to me: If Plame was such a thorn in their side, why didn't they fire her? Theoretically, they could fire anybody working for the Fed gov't. Was their NOT firing her also evidence of a coverup? (She had goods on them, on some serious matter?) Or is there/was there some other, deeper "cloak and dagger" thing going on? (I don't know; I'm thinking, the CIA protecting its own.) (This question presumes that the real target was Plame; Wilson was a secondary target; and a lot of people besides me are convinced of this.)
2/ If the Bush junta-ites had a hand in forging the Niger documents--which is likely--and therefore knew that the Niger/Iraq claim was bogus, WHY were they pestering the CIA with questions about Iraq/Niger? And why did they permit Wilson to go to Niger to nose around, knowing that he would find nothing? (--ambassador would be noticed; he had to have had authorization from somebody at State or WH). This question keeps bothering me: It points to the Niger forgeries being a set-up (of the CIA, by the Bushites?).
3/ And again--a question I keep asking--why the bloody PANIC to out Plame in the week of July 6-12? They could have punished Wilson in a hundred other ways. They could have fired Plame. They could have taken their time. IF their motive was merely punishment of Wilson for his public dissent. Instead, they contacted at least SIX reporters--six journalist witnesses to treason--in one week, probably had WHIG meetings about it, and involved potentially all of Air Force I by faxing the Plame memo to the plane, putting numerous top Bushites at risk of treason charges (technically, felony for disclosure of secrets--but this disclosure was extremely serious, could be looked at as treason, and might be chargeable as treason, and if any covert agents/contacts were killed, as accessory to murder). WHY the rush? WHY involve so many top people? It is just not believable that all of this was over a P.R. problem (a former ambassador's dissenting article).
----------------
As some here may know, I favor the WMD-planting theory of Treasongate--which includes the premise that the Niger forgeries were a SET-UP of the CIA (by the Bushites and their Italian-fascist and Iranian-arms dealer coherts), and were made to be deliberately crude documents (easily detectable as forgeries) so as to bait the CIA into a public no nukes position on Iraq--to be trumped that spring/summer by a phony "find" of nukes in Iraq (possibly with Judith Miller getting "the scoop"). Wilson's publication of his article on July 6 was as far as they got. It was not the trigger for the Plame outing, but rather something they had planned on. (By their putting the Niger claim BACK into Bush's SOTU speech, despite the claim having been debunked by Wilson and others, they virtually guaranteed dissent.) SOMETHING ELSE was the trigger for the Plame outing. And two other things were going on: 1) NO nukes or other WMDs were found in Iraq (if they had a plan to plant them there, it was foiled); and 2) David Kelly's whistleblowing to the BBC about the "sexed up" prewar intel on Iraq, at first anonymous whistleblowing (starting in late May), then the Brits found out who the whistleblower was (their chief WMD expert Kelly), and interrogated him the WEEK BEFORE Plame was outed.
The timeline goes like this: July 6-Wilson publishes his article. July 7-Tony Blair is informed that Kelly knew more than he was saying. July 14-Plame is outed, by Novak. July 18--Kelly is found dead near his home, under highly suspicious circumstances, his office searched, his computers confiscated. July 22-Plame's entire worldwide counter-proliferation network, Brewster-Jennings, is outed by Novak.
I think it's possible that Libby and Miller's meeting on July 8 was prompted by information from BLAIR, as much as it was about information on Plame and how to ruin her network (by outing it), and that David Kelly may have been a major subject of the meeting. (Recall that Miller wanted to limit testimony on that meeting to Plame only.) The dates here are just TOO coincidental. July 6, July 7, July 8. One week later Plame is outed. Two weeks later Kelly is dead. Four days after that, Brewster-Jennings is outed.
Did Plame/BJ foil a plan to plant nukes on Iraqi soil; did Kelly get killed because he found out about it, or participated in it (the foiling of the plot)? Is the outing of Plame/BJ the coverup of an attempted Bushite Iraq/WMD deceit (planting the weapons) and part of the Bushite war against the honest part of the CIA (starting way back in 2001 with the Rome meeting of Ladeen, Ghorbanifar and Italian intel)? (Note: Ladeen was reporting to Hadley, and probably Rumsfeld; Ghorbanifar was persona non grata at the CIA and probably has a grudge against them; as for Italian intel, I don't know--maybe they have dreams of a New Holy Roman Empire.) (This experienced "cloak and dagger" group couldn't come up with forgeries that had plausible names and dates on them???)
That's the gist of the WMD-planting theory. There could be other reasons that Bush & Co. (esp. Cheney) wanted to destroy the CIA's counter-proliferation network (Cheney illiciit arms dealing?). The dates/themes of a Plame/Kelly connection are fairly compelling.
-----------
Back to Fitzgerald and his OP letter to Libby's lawyer: He has to be asking the question, why would Dick Cheney want to out a CIA agent? (or Bush, or whoever else was involved--my guess for mastermind being Rumsfeld). Dick Cheney is IN CHARGE OF THE GOVERNMENT. Bush is the titular head. Rumsfeld is co-baron. WHY would such big players involve themselves in such a crime, when they have the resources of the entire gov't (not to mention private resources) at their disposal? This is Fitzgerald's stated purpose: Finding out WHY. (If it was a rogue action, or inadvertent, that's one thing; if it was a conspiracy at the top, that's quite another--and all of it is a nat'l security issue.) (Who the hell do we have running our gov't?)
Fitzgerald (in the above letter--see the Rawstory link) also says that there has been NO investigation of damage to CIA activities from the Plame/BJ leak--which I find incredible. Wouldn't that be the FIRST thing a President would do--if he WASN'T involved--find out the damage level?
Fitzgerald says this in response to a Libby lawyer request for any document about a damage investigation. So Fitzgerald must have ASKED. He says it without reservation--there was NO investigation. He has to be basing that on an official query. That ALONE is a serious threat to nat'l security. We DON'T KNOW what the damage was?! Because we (the gov't, Bush/Cheney) haven't ASKED for an assessment?! Ye gods! (Another possibility: They're lying to Fitzgerald. And another: They didn't need to do an investigation, because the outing was PLANNED, to inflict certain damage--on Plame and on her network. Mission accomplished. No report needed.)
Libby's lawyer probably wants to argue that the Plame leak was unimportant--didn't warrant a damage assessment. But the absence of such a report does not establish importance either way. What it does establish is NEGLIGENCE on the part of Libby's superiors, and what it points to is COMPLICITY in the leak. Why haven't they done a damage assessment? If there was no damage, why wouldn't they want to prove it (as a defense for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Rice, Libby, Rove and whoever else was involved, and as a leaked 'talking point" to the nation? They didn't even do a whitewash assessment. And what about the CIA itself? It's beyond belief that they did no assessment. Were they ordered not to put it in writing? Or ordered not to do it at all? What the hell is going on here?
Fitzgerald implies that the NEI leak authorization is context (for Libby's perjury/obstruction). They were authorizing him to do that. Why wouldn't they also be the ones authorizing the Plame leak? But it points to far more than obstruction, and to far more than this trial. IF Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld authorized the Plame leak, or stood by while it was done and didn't stop it, and then failed to investigate it, or are covering up the findings of an investigation, then we have a GRAVE nat'l security problem. No one in gov't is safe from them.
Those of us who assess this regime as a fascist junta--and, truly, it's hard not to (to any reasonable and knowledgeable person)--already believe, on the basis of considerable evidence, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their underlings, and players in the background, constitute a grave threat to all of us, and to others in the world. But most other Americans, though they may detest Bush & Co. (38% approval rating), may not know the extent of this regime's crimes, and certainly don't know how to get rid of them. We tried voting. That didn't work (Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S control the vote tabulation--and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies acted in concert, on election night 2004, to cover that up as well). If Fitzgerald is able to nail them with this crime, two of them can only be prosecuted by the US Congress, which is a rubber-stamp for the junta, no matter what they do. And they have meanwhile packed the Supreme Court with more of their good buds. Successful prosecution of Libby, Rove, or others--and certainly of Rumsfeld and/or Rice--could hamper the regime on some of their worser projects, but it wouldn't remove them from power.
It's difficult to see a feasible remedy. A big overturning of the Congress in the '06 election would certainly help--if we can overcome the fraud. (I believe that, in some cases, sheer numbers can overcome the automatic 5% to 10% advantage that is being given to Republicans by these machines. Work to restore transparent elections, and to closely monitor elections, is also very important.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
