Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Fitzgerald: O.K., Libby Wasn’t Convicted of Leaking — But Punish Him As If He Had Been

Fitzgerald: O.K., Libby Wasn’t Convicted of Leaking — But Punish Him As If He Had Been
NRO, by Byron York

During the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged, and never presented evidence, that Libby illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. But now, Fitzgerald wants Libby to be sentenced as if he had been guilty of that crime.

Libby is scheduled to face sentencing on June 5. In court papers filed last week, Fitzgerald argues that Libby should be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in jail — a relatively stiff sentence that is appropriate, Fitzgerald says, because of the seriousness of the investigation which Libby was convicted of obstructing.

During the CIA-leak probe, Fitzgerald looked into possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and the Espionage Act. He did not charge anyone with breaking either law. But in his court filing, Fitzgerald writes that the grand jury “obtained substantial evidence indicating that one or both of the…statutes may have been violated.”

Therefore, Fitzgerald is asking Judge Reggie Walton to treat Libby as if it had been proven that such crimes occurred. “Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court much calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”

As a basis for his argument, Fitzgerald is using a common legal distinction: It’s more serious to obstruct a murder investigation than a shoplifting investigation. The problem, for Fitzgerald, is that he never proved that a crime, as defined by either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, actually occurred. Now, he’s arguing not only that he proved a crime occurred but that Libby knowingly took part in it.




Anonymous cassie said...

Good Morning, all!

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember listening to FitzFong's presser when he indicted Scooter Libby. There was much high-minded talk about protecting the identity of "undercover" agents (Valerie Plameflame WASN'T one) and making sure that this NEVER happened again.

Even back then, the bast-rd KNEW that Armitage was the one who outed the Valley gal who sent her boypal to Africa.

These special prosecuters have to be reined in. This one needs to be prosecuted right next to Nifong!


7:42 AM  
Anonymous les ismore said...

Yes, that is true, he wasnt convicted of leaking a covert agents name. In fact, he wasnt convicted of arson, or murder or anything. But he was convicted of perjury and obstructing of justice in a federal investigation. Last time I looked they were federal crimes.

And Morgan, sorry, but those winger talking points about Plames status are now officially wrong.
CIA documents state clearly and precisely that she was covert at the time Novak published her name.

"WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial."

7:43 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

LES--You're a JOKE! Disclosed by Patrick Fitgerald? You mean it took him THIS long to manufacture 'em? Even PLAME didn't know her own status--get real!

7:43 AM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

No, it was the first time it was disclosed in court documents silly! Remember, the Libby case was not about disclosure of plames covert identity, it was perjery and obstruction of justice.

The CIA, yes, the CIA has recently declassified documents saying that she was covert. When are you guys going to give up that invented canard about her being overt?

8:38 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

LES--When the evidence isn't jerry-rigged or made up:


(Copy and paste this link back together then paste it in your URL window...)

4:07 PM  
Anonymous z said...

les, isn't it obsructing justice when a prosecutor KNEW the defendant wasn't guilty of the crimes presented and still pursues the case? seems like it to me.

9:43 PM  
Anonymous Les Ismore said...

This is the funny line from the American Stinker column:
"The author, Joel Seidman, accepts without question the CIA's bald assertion that "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Accepts without question the CIAs assertion that she was covert! Now, I guess we are supposed to accept some pencil necked American Stinkers bold assertion versus the CIA?

5:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home