When “Talking Points Don’t Fly”
Posted by StormWarning on 28 Oct 2005 at 09:01 pm | Tagged as: Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, Opinions
"Talking points won’t fly." - Patrick Fitzgerald
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001391960
…the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice were "very serious charges." He said that "talking points" that downgrade the charges "won’t fly…"
…Asked about the Republican "talking points" that Libby was only indicted for "technicalities," Fitzgerald replied: "I’ll be blunt. That talking point won’t fly. If you’re doing a national security investigation, if you’re trying to find out who compromised the identity of a CIA officer and you go before a grand jury and if the charges are proven — because remember there’s a presumption of innocence — but if it is proven that the chief of staff to the vice president went before a federal grand jury and lied under oath repeatedly and fabricated a story about how he learned this information, how he passed it on, and we prove obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements to the FBI–that is a very, very serious matter…"
"…But I will not end the investigation until feel we have done everything we can. Everyone should take a deep breath and allow us to do what we need to do…"
Comment: We may never know the impact of the perjury and obstruction on the ability of Fitzgerald to learn the truth about any possible violation of the primary charge of the investigation (a violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act). In that context, this is an issue of national security if ever it is proven.
Comment: But the timetable of events pieced together in the indictment can lead to certain conclusions…none of which at this point matter. We’ll see what happens next.
For the record, here is the .pdf file of Fitzgerald’s press release (citing one key paragraph): http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.
And here is a link to the indictment itself: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/plame/usvlibby102805ind.pdf
But the "talking points won’t fly." That’s a quote from Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointed special prosecutor lauded for his integrity and thoroughness.
"Lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury is a serious violation of the public trust…"
Comment: My personal opinion is that new facts may emerge in what follows. I hope that those facts will clarify the questions that I and others have about the motives of why Plame’s name came up for discussion. I also believe that ultimately, the American people deserve to know everything there is to know about how the case for the invasion of Iraq was reached (noting that I continue to maintain that the removal of Hussein from Iraq was, in fact, a positive and monumental step in the battle against global terrorism).
However, still, as Fitzgerald said, "This indictment is not about the war…Anyone who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against [it] shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that." And it must be remembered that an indictment does not equal a finding of guilt or innocence of the charges. More is left to be seen and learned, IMO.
Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, Opinions
An interesting aspect of this may turn out to be what the impact of the alleged perjury and obstruction had on Fitzgerald’s ability to address the primary point of the investigation…that of any violation of the IIPA.
The thing I’m waiting to see is how Rove, Cheney, Libby, Bush, or anyone could discuss the background of Wilson and how he got his appointment without discussing his wife. She put herself in a position to be outed by pushing her husband into a very visible situation. I still feel this is much ado over nothing and in the long run, thanks to a very visble trial, will be proven as such.
Frankly, we don’t agree here, but I suspect we haven’t agreed on this since its first exposure.
But if you take Fitzgerald at face value in his press release statements (that prior to 7/14/03 her employment with the CIA was classified. To me, at that point, nothing else needs to be said about her status. Now, whether or not the IIPA was violated clearly has not been proven, and may never be.
Further, the bigger picture needs to be looked at as well.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usspy1030,0,2467645.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix
…”Cover and tradecraft are the only forms of protection one has and to have that stripped away because of political scheming is the moral equivalent to exposing forward-deployed military units,” said Arthur Brown, who retired in February as the CIA’s Asian Division chief.
The military can pack up and go elsewhere, he said, but “in the case of a serving clandestine officer, it’s the end of that officer’s ability to function in that role…”
-AND-
…”You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put them at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources,” he said.
But I do not think that this is “much ado about nothing.” I still think that this is an issue relating to National Security and the “keeping of the trust” that all of our clandestine service people need to expect will be preserved.
This was provided by Moon and I am posting this here for future reference. When I have time, I am going to be re-reading specifically the section of the Senate Intelligence Report relating to Niger and the two missions to determine if Iraq had sought to purchase “yellowcake” from that country and providing my take on it.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf