WP: Libby Prosecutor Focuses on CIA Officer's Status ("motive to lie")

[sabra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101024.html

Libby Prosecutor Focuses on CIA Officer's Status
Filings Say Ex-Cheney Aide Knew That Plame Was Classified, Giving Him Reason to Lie to Grand Jury


The classified status of the identity of former CIA officer Valerie Plame will be a key element in any trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, according to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald has said that at trial he plans to show that Libby knew Plame's employment at the CIA was classified and that he lied to the grand jury when he said he had learned from NBC News's Tim Russert that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked for the agency.

...

At last week's court argument on pretrial motions, Fitzgerald said Libby had a "motive to lie" to the grand jury. By "attributing to a reporter" his information about Plame's CIA status and emphasizing that he was "passing on" scuttlebutt but "didn't know if it were true," the prosecutor said, Libby in his testimony was deliberately casting his actions as "a non-crime" in a way that "looks much more innocent than passing on what you know to be classified."

...

At the oral argument that same day, Fitzgerald, referring to the conversation, described the CIA official as a witness who described to Libby "and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson."

[grytpype]

1. If they knew she was covert, then why wasn't it a crime to leak????

This whole time I've been thinking Fitz couldn't prove the leakers knew she was NOC, which is why he isn't charging anyone for the leak, but it looks like I was way wrong about that.

Hmmm... well, it's just more bad news for the traitorous scum.

[grytpype]

2. OK, I read the article...

... and maybe they didn't know until after the Novak article when someone from the CIA told Libby and "someone else" (another Cheney creature) that they did a lot of damage.

[Supersedeas]

8. stranger and stranger in my eyes

[wookie294]

3. Fitz is a Republican

I have always felt Fitz has been treating the leakers with kid gloves. His prosecution could be far more agressive, but he's been quite wimpy about it. His failure to prosecute the leakers on the underlying crime is proof of his timid prosecution. It's so obvious Rove has lied, so why the delay in prosecuting him? I'm not confident about Fitz at all. Remember, he's a REPUBLICAN.

[Kagemusha]

4. With all due respect, shove it.

The man has demonstrated nothing but the highest respect for the law as a citizen, not as a member of a political party. Keep in mind that no one has been convicted of violating the "CIA name leak law" since it was established. No one has ever been convicted under Espionage Act provisions for leaking the name of a CIA undercover agent to the media. His job is difficult. But more than anything else, even here, on a board called Democratic Underground, there ought to be respect for the civil rights of fellow Americans and enough restraint to not allege corruption in other citizens solely on the basis of their technical political affiliation, particularly in the case of an individual with such an unusually long and vigorous track record of enforcing the law as the law is written without favor to anyone.

Save it for someone who actually deserves your bile.

[journalist3072]

5. Someone please help me understand this particular line, please

"Fitzgerald has said that at trial he plans to show that Libby knew Plame's employment at the CIA was classified..."

If that is the case, then why isn't he getting Libby on violating the Intelligence Identitites Protection Act?

I always thought that was the trigger for charging someone with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act---that the defendent had to know the person was covert in the first place.

[Kagemusha]

6. Because Libby's not the whole story, intent to expose is hard to prove

and as Fitz sees it, he's the umpire who's had sand thrown into his eyes and he can't make a fully informed decision about the IIPA consequences if people are going to lie to him under oath instead of, say, taking the 5th. And, if Libby exposed Plame at someone else's behest, he wants to know that, too. That can only be cleared up fully by Libby's truthful, cooperative testimony. Libby chose to provide the opposite of that, so Fitz is pursuing Libby on those narrow grounds.

[journalist3072]

7. What a mess!! Thanks for that clarification. eom