Fitz's letter to Libby lawyer tosses up another gem!

[BR_Parkway]

Well, found these 3 during the first run through in addition to the missing emails and we hashed them about in the thread:

1. Plame status was confirmed undercover at all relevant times
   
2. Fitz has more documents about others who spoke to reporters
   
3. Libby testified that he shared info at the request of his supervisor(s)
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2432282&mesg_id=2432282
   

But missed another one until Murray Waas points it out:

Did President Bush personally receive information during his morning intelligence briefings about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger? Court filings in the CIA leak case appear to indicate that may well might have been the case.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj3.htm

with this little gem from Fitz's letter

http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLetter.pdf

In response to our requests, we have received a very discrete amount of material relating to PDBs. We have provided to Mr. Libby and his counsel (or are in the process of providing such documents consistent with the process of a declassification review) copies of any pages in our possession reflecting discussions of Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson and/or Wilson's trip to Niger contained in (or written on) copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB) in the redacted form in which we received them.

What a ton of stuff he's managed to squeeze into a 6 page response to Libby's lawyer! And every bit of it was meant to convey that they've got the goods to keep some more charges coming to both your client and others - you better cut a deal with us before someone else does. And you know what kind of scumbags your client needs to be afraid of copping a plea before he does.

[Stephanie]

1. Nail the traitors, Fitz!

Slam them to the wall.

[gkhouston]

2. "contained in (or written on)"

I wonder whose handwriting is on those PDB's. :popcorn:

[BR_Parkway]

4. Isn't that an awesome little phrase!?! I can just see it, all wrinkled up

where he had a hissy fit and balled it up and threw it against the wall, since we know how well he responds to being challenged.

And then, in bright red Crayola - "GIT HIM" GWB or something. Wouldn't that be sweet

[hang a left]

19. lol

[sundancekid]

30. probably during a "bathroom break" - with Cunti's permission of course

[spindrifter]

48. Maybe at the end of their

meetings the PDB's are collected from the participants. Bet this will stop them from writing personal notes on the manuscripts...:evilgrin:

[Brotherjohn]

3. "at the request of his supervisor(s)". Hmnn, who might they be?

Libby was Chief of Staff for the Vice President. It seems to me that his only supervisor would be... the Vice President (and possibly the President).

Does this mean that Fitz knows that Cheney directed Libby to out Plame?

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. If Libby cuts a deal with Fitz, does that cancel the Jan. 07 court date?

In other words, can Fitz beging a whole new set of indictments prior to the next election if Libby cops a plea?

[stop the bleeding]

8. Sounds like to me he could bring indictments anytime he wants - with or

without a plea - even though the plea would help. Fitz is awesome and he knows that he has the upper hand.

[BR_Parkway]

10. Remember how Bobby Earle did it to Delay? Let them feel all froggy

about how they were going to beat that one charge since it wasn't illegal when Delay did it, even though it is now? When they had spoken loudly to the masses about how it was gonna get thrown out, rabid out of control prosecutor, blah, blah, blah - Earle drops another indictment on him!

And that TX prosecutor is just no where near as smooth as our great little Irish one from Chicago.

Fitz never charged under the Classified stuff, Libby can't defend against that with all the garbage about secret clearances - all he has him on now is perjury and obstruction. But if you look at the letter and those links - Fitz just told Luskin, you better get your boy to plead - cause I've got the rest of the goods to really rain bricks upon his head.

Any we only offer pleas to get to the next bigger person in the food chain.

Hmmm, Saint Patrick's day is coming up in a few weeks...

[Me.]

14. Likely

If the deal includes some kind of punishment they would set another date for sentencing. If Scoot manages a "stay out of jail" card he would then have to go before a grand jury and hopefully indictments would follow.

[Sydnie]

6. they had PDB's on his trip?

WOW! I didn't realize that! hmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... tasty.

[stop the bleeding]

7. Your ability and perception is amazing K&R ! - I have been so

busy the last 24 hours that I have yet to put those 2 together - great work once again!

Now I have to add this to my list for reviewing later tonight.

[leveymg]

9. I try not to get too excited these days about this, BUT . . .!!!!!!!!!

those references to PDBs and supervisors makes it clear that Fitz has other evidence pointing to actual knowledge of the Plame trip by Bush and Cheney.

It's hard to imagine at this point he'd be issuing subpoenas for such specific documents unless he already has something -- such as someone's testimony -- that needs corroboration.

You have to wonder what Bush and Dick have told Fitz, and how well their testimony squares with the rest of the evidence. If there isn't a good match, then the Pres and Veep are looking at Obstruction of Justice charges.

WOW!!!:woohoo:

[stop the bleeding]

11. Yep 2 incredible posts by BR_parkway in 2 days- this is fun

also your diary is part of my homework tonight for review- thank you

[BR_Parkway]

13. And that Plame was undercover at all relevant times - up till now, that's

never been actually said. Freeps were speculating that she had a desk job and everyone knew she was CIA - but the foot note at the bottom of that page makes it really clear that CIA has confirmed that she was undercover during the entire "relevant period"

And that's the part that had to be established to bring that charge under the statute

[malaise]

17. Oh Yes

Please Fitz please.

[calimary]

33. Let's see... if he's the veep's chief of staff, and his "superiors" told

him to discuss Valerie Plame outside the reservation, hmmm... what superiors are there remaining for someone whose job is as chief of staff to the vice president? How many "superiors" could one have? WHOOOOOOOO might those "superiors" be? Who constitutes a "superior" to the chief of staff to the vice president of the United States? Anyone wanna make a guess?

:evilgrin:

Tighten those screws, Patrick my darling!

[eppur_se_muova]

35. Could it be ... oh, I don't know ... S A T A N ? (with rreevveerrbb)

LOL, calimary, the tone of your post sounds like Dana Carvey's "Church Lady".

[bigbrother05]

37. Wasn't he also an advisor to the Prez?

Or was it the NSA under Condi? Any way you cut it, some of the big fish are on the hook too.

[ktlyon]

40. yes

first person to hold three positions at this level. Advisor to the pres. was one.

[emulatorloo]

12. KICKING AND SCREAMING and nominating -- GO FITZ GO. . . .n/t

[ClayZ]

15. Kick ..... ! ! !

:kick:

[Tigress DEM]

16. ALL I want for Fitzmas is my COUNTRY BACK!!!

LET's WAKE UP THE HOUSE people. THEY have the authority to IMPEACH.

THERE IS ALSO a NEW Memo between Bush and Blair that confirms and goes beyond what the DSM alluded to - BUSH CAN BE IMPEACHED if WE THE PEOPLE ROCK THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and FORCE them to DO the right thing.

[Mabus]

18. Next question "what was redacted"

in otherwords, were any of the handwritten ("written on") notes redacted? Who wrote them? Were they messages from Tenet, comments from Cheney, talking points from WHIG?

[BR_Parkway]

21. Can we assume anything in Crayola is Shrub's writing? LOL

[Mabus]

29. That is always a given.

[stevedeshazer]

20. Great stuff, BR_Parkway

K & R

[SillyGoose]

22. Oh, BR Parkway, you gave a reason to smile today!!

Thank you for posting this!!

[BR_Parkway]

23. Glad to have caused a smile! If everyone could do that every

day, none of the rest of this watching and hoping that some are brought to justice would even be necessary!

[Straight Shooter]

24. Amazing. Fitz is "getting to the bottom of it" and bush is not.

This little Plame centipede is not going away. Thanks for the insight. K&R

[txindy]

25. Oh, definitely nominating this gem!

And a shiny one it is, too!

Patrick Fitzgerald is a tenacious, detail-oriented truth-teller, as proven over and over, again.

[bleever]

26. Thank you, BR! So very nominated!

:thumbsup:

[Vinca]

27. Fitzgerald is like a stealth bomber. One of these days the entire

case will blow open out of nowhere. I'm wondering what's happened with Rove. Maybe he's getting him on something bigger - like arranging for the forged documents.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Or Rove could be the key to what he's after

and that's why he hasn't done his indictments yet. He could give them out now couldn't he?

[symbolman]

28. BR Parkway

you just "won" yourself a free double DVD set of my film "Rove's War", the complete chronology of the Plame outing which I have been using for fundraising at Takebackthemedia.com

It's little gems like this that keep kicking this subject which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the media, I haven't, I made a film about it and it's been getting some good reviews, hell, Joe Wilson himself donated and received three copies, which made me pretty proud..

SO PM me with a snail mail address and I'll send you a copy of my film, which I'm sure you'll enjoy, and you can let folks know what you think of it as well, you appear to know the subject well, and I spent a year researching it, like to see what you think :)

Here's the link to the film if anyone wants to watch the 12 minute preview of it http://www.takebackthemedia.com

Hoping Wilson will write me and let me know what he thinks, didn't want to bug him over the holidays, but I DID wrap his films up in Fitzmas paper :)

THANKS for keeping this in the public eye!

[FreedomAngel82]

55. I tried to see the preview but it doesn't work for me

:shrug:

[Justice Is Comin]

31. Libby's lawyer Wells

is an idiot. He's asking for Brady material or non applicable statute material for his charges, and which also isn't relevant, not required to be turned over or premature to be asking for.

Fitz slaps him around a little telling him he is under no obligation to provide it, and then gives him most of what he's asking for because he's not worried that it jeopardizes his case. :rofl: LOL. He's making WElls look like a moron.

The young Irish fella is tightening the screws. But I caution you that the reference to her being classified "at all relevant times" is not the same as being undercover. Fitz says that he is not aware of any CIA document that says her status was not "classified."

That's not by any means a smoking pistol because being classified only means she was working for the CIA. If his letter had said, he wasn't aware of any CIA document that says she wasn't undercover , then I would definitely be joining in your jubilation on that point.

However this filing shows the monster master litigator Libby is going to crumble to. If he's got a brain at all, he better plead.

[BR_Parkway]

38. The smoking gun is about Cheney moreso than Libby

- from the brief filed with the court to compel the reporters testimony:

To prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982,
Pub. L. No. 97-200, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. (96 Stat. 122) 145 (codified at 50 D.S.C.
§§ 421-426 ) (the "Act") (Tab A), the government must establish the following
elements:

1. The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States;
   
   
2. The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of an intelligence agency;
   
   
3. The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified;
   
   
4. At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of the disclosure;
   
   
5. The person disclosing the identity of that covert agent must be authorized, directly or indirectly, to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent;
   
   
6. The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;
   
   
7. The person disclosing the identity knows that the information so identifies the covert agent;
   
   
8. The disclosure is intentional; and
   
   
9. The identity is disclosed to a person not having authorization to receive such information.

(numbering added by me for reference points

and from Fitz's letter (http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLetter.pdf):

(19)-(22): We will be providing to you prior to February 3 copies of subpoenas and pertinent correspondence relating to reporters referenced in the Indictment and/or whom we expect to call at tria1.2 We are specifically withholding subpoenas (and correspondence) which were addressed to reporters whose testimony was directed towards government officials other than Mr. Libby.

(B) and (C): We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson's employment was not classified during the relevant times that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information.3

3 I note that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified but has since been declassified so that we may now confirm such status. In any event, we are not aware of any documents in our possession stating that Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not classified at the relevant times.

So he points out that Libby hasn't been charged and any paper is not discoverable. But makes a point to mention, in footnote that here status has been confirmed and that they don't have any documents stating that here affiliation with the CIA was not classified at the relevant times. Fitz wouldn't be committing that to writing on a verbal from CIA that she was/was not - he'd have a written response to be able to produce in court - and that response satisfies the first 3 things the statute requires for charges to be brought.

He then goes on to make the point that Libby testified that he got the info from his superiors (effectively meeting the claim that the disclosing person was authorized to have access to it, even if Libby was not) (items 5, 7 & 8 - potentially 9).

At this time we do not intend to offer any evidence of"other crimes" pursuant to Rule 404(b).
As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified in the grand jury that he had contact with reporters in which he disclosed the content of the National Intelligence Estimate ("NIB") to such reporters in the course of his interaction with reporters in June and July 2003 (and caused at least one other government official to discuss the NIE with the media in July 2003). We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors. We expect that such conduct 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).

Finally, in the Washington Post article, the fact that Plame's ID was marked as secret satisfies item # 6:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_2.html

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

The only question not covered in Fitz's letter is if the CIA disclosure that he has states whether or not Plame operated outside of the country during the past five years - and if she took any trips under the Brewster-Jennings cover, that seems like a pretty easy one to show - so I'm thinking he's got that too. (item # 4)

His whole chess game in writing the response the way he did was to put pressure on Libby to plead - and Libby's testimony makes the case against Cheney so much stronger, the man is the sitting VP - you'd want to make sure your case was flawless before you jump off that cliff.

[Justice Is Comin]

51. Yes BR

but the thing I'm pointing out is that Fitzgerald indicated (in an awkward sort of way) that if there was confirmation from the CIA in a document that her status was classified at the times relevant, it would not give them discovery rights for that material even if that were the case.

The word we would much rather have seen is COVERT, OR UNDERCOVER in (B) and (C) of that response. Outing a covert CIA agent is much more serious than outing a "classified" CIA operative. It subverts the seriousness of IIPA.

His denial of releasing testimony of "other government officials" is clearly a shot over the bow to increase the pressure. No doubt it implicates Cheney. Also disclosing the national intelligence estimate has possible serious implications although, here again he didn't charge him yet with leaking that classified material.

My main point is that this response to interogatories does not give us any strong showing that Plame was covert. Her undercover role may have fell just outside the five year window.

[katty]

32. nice Fitz touch...material relating to PDBs

[Kingofalldems]

34. Why hasn't Mary Matalin raced down to Fitz's office?

She's been claiming on all the talk shows that everyone in town knew about Plame's status. I would like to make an offer to her right now---I will gladly pay her cab fare to Fitz's office first, and then to the Grand Jury where she can testify under oath about all her 'facts'.

[Wilms]

36. kick

[DeepModem Mom]

39. Damn, I wish this could move faster! It could be years before Rove...

(or anyone else) would come to trial if indicted, given the lag time before Libby's trial. I'm afraid we're stuck with Karl, and his evil machinations, until Bush is out of office. He's back in full control at the WH.

[BR_Parkway]

41. Have faith, Fitz knows exactly what he's doing - and right now he's

indirectly saying that he's got the goods to take down the Pres/VP, so Libby better not be holding out hope for a pardon, he needs to cut a deal

[ktlyon]

43. The scandals of this administration will go on long into the future.

Even after 2008 we will be prosecuting these criminals. The legacy of this bunch will be court case after court case.

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. Rove can be indicted at any time

and my guess is that it will be within the next few weeks.

Rove was last seen on Friday in Dallas TX heading to the Pig Farm with Bush. I'm guessing they got some bad news from Fitzgerald last Friday.

[Mossadeq]

42. This all looks real good

But I am confused about her status.

Is classified and undercover the same thing ? ..It doesn't seem like it is, maybe you need to change your post.

[FlaGranny]

44. Not the same thing.

If you're under cover, it is certainly classified; but, if you're classified that doesn't mean you are under cover.

[Catrina]

46. What's important is that she was classified at the time that she was

outed. Whoever outed her, as I read it from Fitz's statements, KNEW she was classified at the time. If they intended to use the 'everyone knew she worked for the CIA' defense, it won't work. It is illegal to release classified information to the public.

Also, one thing he said in that letter raises a question. He said that she has since been 'declassified' therefore it's alright for him to mention her previous classification in a public record.

My question is, if she was also 'undercover', would that status ever be mentioned publicly? Iow, is it ever allowed to release publicly the identities of undercover agents? She can no longer be undercover, due to the crime that was committed. But would Fitz be able to say publicly, that she ever was?

He seems to be saying 'I can now at least reveal that she was classified at the times of the crimes'. That doesn't mean she was never undercover, just that he can't talk about it publicly. Her undercover persona may still not be generally known. She would have had a phony name, I would imagine. A completely phony ID and possibly disguises. Just wondering ~ but who would know, would be the VP and the President, and other top officials with security clearance.

Just wondering if that's possible. It would make charges based on 'undercover' status, difficult. So maybe he's going with 'classified' because, as he said, 'she is not longer classified'. Just wondering ~

I read that the CIA doesn't even reveal the ID of undercover agents who have died, or been killed in the course of their duties ~ they just have memorials with numbers on them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. He won't have to

because he doesn't have to indict any of them for the actual crime of outing an operative. He is going after them for perjury and obstruction of justice which won't require getting into too much secret stuff.

[Catrina]

57. True, those are the charges at this point but he did mention 'other crimes

' in the context that since 'other crimes' have not YET been charged, he doesn't have to release information pertaining to them.

I remember his press conference where he stated that he was blocked from finding the truth (that someone did commit the crime of outing a 'classified' agent's ID' and that the person, Libby, who blocked him had thrown allegorical dust in his eyes.

He didn't say that he was not still looking to see who had outed her, just that he was being blocked by Libby ~

When he mentions 'other crimes' in that letter, he may be letting Libby's lawyer know that he is still pursueing those crimes, but because he has not yet charged anyone with them, they have no right to the materials (meaning he has some) in his possession right now.

If I were Libby I would see that as ominous ~ it could mean, if you are Libby reading it, 'I am still collecting evidence that shows you might be charged with the more serious crime of outing an agent whose status was classified, but you have no right to the evidence, YET!'

[BR_Parkway]

49. Classified vs undercover - 2 totally seperate crimes - its against the law

to disclose classifed information (missle plans, number of ships, CIA agents who are classified)

There's a seperate law specifically about undercover agent disclosure. Fitz could charge them with unauthorized disclosure of classified info without charging disclosure of an undercover agent. The wording of the letter doesn't make it clear if he could charge undercover agent, but he puts it right out there that her status was classified at all relevant times (everyone who has security clearances signs the form acknowledging that the info is classified and that there are criminal penalties for disclosure, even after you no longer work with the info)

[Catrina]

50. Thank you, that's what I thought. Still, if she was undercover, and that

my understanding, could he charge someone with outing her as an undercover agent? Has anyone ever been charged with that crime, which I imagine would be way more serious.

I have to go back and read the laws on that. I think it was former Sen. Graham? who initially outlined the laws on outing agents ~

[Mossadeq]

52. Thats what I thought.

I just want to make sure we are using the right terms. So we don't yet know if she was a 'undercover agent' ...but we know that her job was classified.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. And this could be why

Fitzgerald visited Bush's lawer for this.

[stop the bleeding]

56. You are talking about that Friday morning before the Libby indictment

right? I have always wanted that explained, and your idea is a good bet.