Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury a while back because he made a few questionable statements as to where he heard Valerie Plame's name. That's it. Maybe before the real leaker, Richard Armitage, was revealed, this might have been a serious case of a cover up. But they continued to press on even after finding out who it was that exposed Valerie Plame. But I'm left to wonder a few things.
- The source of the leak may have been known to some officials in 2003. The Special Prosecutor knew when he was assigned that Armitage was the leaker, yet pressed on. Why? Another thing, has Armitage been punished yet for his crimes? I've not heard of anything nor have I found anything yet on the internet.
- Also, was Plame a "covert agent?" Looking at the definition here (covert agent is defined at the bottom), I don't think so. Unless my memory is ill-serving, she did not work overseas, and was not working with FBI in counter-terrorism or counter-surveillance. I'm fairly confident that covert and classified are different statuses.
- And: Scooter Libby got convicted for perjury for (probably inadvertently) saying the wrong name as to where he heard Plame's name. Plame testified that she was covert. If she does not meet that definition, where's the perjury charge?
4 comments:
The CIA has confirmed Valerie Plame was a covert agent until Novak's column. Valerie Plame did not testify at Scooter Libby's trial, as the trial was not about her or her status, but about Libby's testimony to the Grand Jury and FBI.
Libby had several opportunities in front of the Grand Jury to correct his mistakes. However, they were not mistakes but deliberate lies. He said repeatedly he heard the name from Russert. Prosecutor Fitzgerald proved to the satisfaction of the jury that Libby learned of Plame via other means, and that Libby's lies were more than mere 'mistakes'.
Plame testified in Congressional Hearings. I am quite aware she didn't testify at Libby's trial. That's one more case to show how irrelevant he was to the leak. She testified on her status as covert and she also testified that she had nothing to do with Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Those I question. I simply asked if she fits the definition of "covert" under the IIPA. I have searched and came up with mixed results on the question.
Libby's role in the affair was irrelevant and should have never been put to trial. And you cannot make the assertion that Libby's statements were deliberate lies instead of honest mistakes. There's nothing to prove one way or the other. Fitzgerald pressed on Libby even though he knew Armitage was the leak. There was no reason for it. Libby did not reveal her name or her status (which was classified at the time). The leaker was already known, and a special prosecutor should not have been assigned and there was no reason to press on with Libby and Libby shouldn't have gone though the mess he did. If ever someone deserved a pardon, it was in this case. Sandy Berger never went to jail for stealing and destroying form the National Archives. Why should Libby in this case having no significance in the case?
I like to post anonymously because I don't have the guts to show my screen name on the Internet.
Scooter Libby.
Post a Comment