"TREASONGATE: What's..Missing From Fitzgerald's Website..?

[dbeach]

CS has some pts

Libby could get the USC 793
I edited out much


http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

"TREASONGATE: What's Mysteriously Missing From Fitzgerald's Website, Press Conference, Press Release and The Indictment
MYSTERY #1: What's missing from Fitzgerald's press conference, press release and Libby's Indictment?
Page 48 of the brief states:

Moreover, appellants’ specific claim that requiring the disclosure of sources would impinge on reporters’ ability to uncover government misconduct rings hollow, given that the investigation in this case involves information that may have been released by a government official for political or retaliatory reasons, rather than the release of information in the nature of “whistleblowing.”

Page 48 also states:

Accordingly, public policy weighs heavily in favor of, rather than against, “chilling” such retaliatory disclosures by public officials.

Have you solved the mystery yet?

ANSWER: The missing word = RETALIATION

But this Fitzgerald, he's a cagy fellow. After looking this over and over, I'm certain Fitz has Libby on 18 USC 793(d), and I'm certain Fitz knows he's got Libby locked down on it.

You can quote me on that.

QUESTION: Hold on there CS, didn't Fitz say "it's not enough"?

This is true. Fitz did say that, and he meant it. But he wasn't answering a direct question about 18 USC 793(d). He was answering a blanket question concerning why he didn't charge Libby with any other crimes.

QUESTION: If he's got Libby locked down for violating 793(d), why not charge him?

Now that is the million dollar question for today. Before I answer that question let me first explain why Fitz has Libby locked down for violating 793(d) of the Espionage Act.

Fitz stated that the info was classified. He didn't state that Libby knew it was classified. Yet, 793(d) does not require -- as an element of the statute -- that the information be "classified". 793(d) only requires that the information be "related to the national defense". Fitzgerald made it clear -- in the press conference, press release, and the indictment -- that Plame's cover -- the cover of a CIA officer -- was certainly related to the national defense.

LIBBY is toast under 18 USC 793(d). Fitz has him locked down with no escape hatch other than a pardon.
In his ex parte affidavit, Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this case and the investigation as a whole. The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government’s focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation. Through the ex parte affidavit, the Court has determined that the subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the movants, but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury’s investigation.

"... the government's focus has shifted"
"...an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation..."

Where have those quotes been hiding?"



Will the ratties desert the sinkin ship of state run by the alfred.e.newman clone named bushco..??

[Love Bug]

1. Libby isn't charged with outing Valerie Plame, he's charged

with lying to the grand jury and obstructing justice, which is a different crime!

In other words, if he had fully cooperated with the grand jury from day one, he'd still be sitting in his office in DC, just like Rove.

So, his current indictments are either the beginning or the end. I hope for the former.

[jbnow]

20. If he had fully cooperated with the grand jury

Libby would be charged with much more serious crimes, no doubt.

If he had lied BETTER he might be sitting in his office today.

[nonny]

2. Sealed affidavit -- Clue?

Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, May. 20, 2005

SNIP--

But beneath these legal issues, lies a mystery: Why has the investigation's focus fallen on them, in particular? Miller never wrote about the leak of Plame's identity; Cooper wrote about it well after Novak had included the leaked information in his column.

So these two would seem peripheral - but plainly, they are central. Why?

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's opinion in the case gives one clue. In discussing the sealed affidavit filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Hogan noted that "the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation" and "now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation." Though vague, these references are also significant.

The newly released paperback edition of the book by Plame's husband - former Ambassador Joseph Wilson - entitled The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Put the White House on Trial and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity, helps explain what Judge Hogan may have been getting at, and what that sealed affidavit may say.

snip--

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050520.html

[nonny]

29. Russ Hoyle's investigative foreword from the paperback edition

I found this on Wilson's website.
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/default.htm

I don't know if this foreword is what Dean was hinting at -- but it is new info from Wilson's book.

This new foreword is 37 pages long.

The Niger Affair: The Investigation That Won't Go Away
Russ Hoyle

Here is a snip--

The 2004 Intelligence Committee report established a number of facts about the White House's role in the intelligence-gathering process that, while not providing a comprehensive picture, raised serious questions about timing of developments in the Niger affair and its shadowy origins. The committee reported that Vice President Cheney repeatedly pushed the Niger case forward -- probably even setting in motion Wilson's briefing by the CIA at its Langley headquarters and his trip to Niger in late February 2002. The committee's reporting also casts doubt on White House claims that Cheney had not read the CIA report on Wilson's debriefing after his trip -- thus suggesting that Cheney was unfamiliar with Wilson's conclusion that the Niger deal probably never took place.

(page 6 of pdf)
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/documents/foreword.pdf

Interesting read.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Didn't Fitzgerald just ask for classified material to be

declassified so it could be given to the defense attorneys?

[Wilms]

12. I think he asked for defense atty's to get Security Clearance...

so that they would have access to the evidence.

[Sydnie]

25. I believe he asked for both

Unless you are going to do a security clearance on each of the jurors and try the case in some back room in the court house, he will need much of the evidence declassified. Until that happens, he needs to allow the defense time for discovery as well as time to examine the evidence against their clients. Thus, they need a security clearance to see it before it is declassified.

[nashville_brook]

4. Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby

that help me understand the "game" of it all. bush's openly lame comments to the press today suggest he's way out of his comfort zone. this isn't the "bring it on... I've earned CAPITAL" prez he was a few months ago.

i heard a Brer Rabbit confidence in Fitz's comments in his press conf. that's what a good prosecuter does, no?

[nashville_brook]

5. oh yeah - meant to say, on Bush's comments on Karl Rove today, that his

anxiety in facing this shit probably has a lot to do with the fact that he's having trouble getting other Republicans to sign on with him. He's gone from teflon to velcro in record time. his polls are so low he'd have to offer a majorly sweet pot for any right-thinking professional to affiliate with him at this point.

[Holly_Hobby]

6. Great find, dbeach!

Thanks for posting this. CS gives me hope that the Bush/Cheney cabal will fall hard.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. Yes, great to have such professional insights.

[nonny]

7. From Fitzgerald’s Press Conference

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

“This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.”

He doesn’t say—
… get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised OR NOT

He says—
…whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important.

To me, it sounds like YES, national security was compromised – we just have to figure out WHY before we charge them with 793

[stop the bleeding]

8. Very interesting, one of the best well thought out theories yet.

Nominated! Thank you and bookmarking this.

[yodermon]

9. Great post by CitizenSpook

even though I hate him.
Why do I hate him?
Because he's conviced that the Wilsons are "in on" the conpiracy to out Valerie. :eyes: :eyes: ..

However, his legal analysis and parsing of Fitz's statements is pretty good, IMHO. Here are the salient points of his post:

1) Fitz originally stated the "retaliation" motive in early filings
2) The investigation then takes an "unanticipated shift".
3) Now, the "retaliation" motive is GONE from all of Fitz's indictments, press conferences, and briefs. He even states (e.g. baseball analogy) that he's NOT indicting Libby yet on IIPA/Espionage BECAUSE he's still trying to determine motive.

4) Well if MOTIVE is still in quesiton, then 18 USC 794(a) could now be on the table, to wit:

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation...shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life...

{note death is only an option if an agent of the US is identified by a foreign power and killed}

"All" Fitz has to show is that the perp(s) knew that exposing Plame/BrewsterJennings would definitely harm the United States OR to the advantage of a foreign nation.

:shrug:

[stop the bleeding]

11. Maybe Fitz is lookin at both of those points of the law for additional

charges?

[dbeach]

21. thanx for sharing

I have followed CS from day #1 . His wilson stance is not well received by many and rightfully so..Wilson still appears as a Hero in the making..Nobody has offered that rarest of commodities ..
..facts ..facts to show Wilson is not what he appears to be..

In the desert the man with a cup of water is king
and in this long drought waiting for Truth ...my mind changes ..
and mirages may be epidemic..

God I am thirsty.

I pray for Fitzgerald to CS to Wilson to fill my cup
and may the sands take the deceitful...

[Nordmadr]

23. I was not aware of the discrepancies between early articles and

Wilson's later statements. This does seem a valid point to parse. I would like to hear a solid reasoning or explanation for the discrepancies. I think it important to research all conflicting statements. Keep in mind it is not just winning we want, but truth and justice. That does not mean we will always win. If anyone knows of good info out there with info on the differences here, it would satisfy my curiosity.

With that said, I further like his dissection of the laws combined with Fitzgeralds statements. Very logical approach.

Olaf

[PATRICK]

10. The simple appearance

as opposed to the depth one would hope for between the lines and behind the scenes, is that the chief liar has been nailed with some hope of breaking down other liars and maybe getting at the core of the crime behind the lies. That leaves one guy to take the heat to protect the guy with the power of the pardon pen, someone more a loyalist and stooge small fry than Caspar Weinberger of Iran Contra was.

Lately, despite all secrecy by all sides, it has been pretty much what you see is what you get- and time is not on our side ever.

As a simpleton with no access to analysis or info, it appears to me that this can be the dead end the perps have been gunning for in the long run- at least as it appears now. The biggest heat has been taken in the polls and the general enmity of the US captive populace toward the regime. As far as the "system" and its functioning heroes go- pffft- compared to the high crimes committed and for which people are slaughtered and robbed daily.

[On the Road]

13. Great Source!

Never saw CitizenSpook before. This guy really does his homework.

:thumbsup:

[mattclearing]

14. The obvious answer is that Fitzgerald is holding worse charges over Libby

to ensure that he gives up his boss(es).

[FreedomAngel82]

31. I think so too

He's probably working that angle which is also why Karl Rove probably hasn't been indicted yet.

[seemslikeadream]

15. Two questions:

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/

1. Why isn't this official decision of the District Court included at the Special Counsel's website?

My best guess is that Fitz may not have wanted certain people to focus on the inflammatory information contained in that statement. Out of sight out of mind, right? But once Raimondo's column zeroed in on this decision, it must have become obvious that people would be hunting for the official court document. And now it's back online. I don't really know what this means, if anything, but the document sure led this blogger on an interesting journey. The second question, and by far the more relevant one is:

2. Where has this "unanticipated shift" taken Fitzgerald?

When you examine the shift in Fitzgerald's publications and official utterances on the topic of motivation, it becomes reasonable to believe that Fitzgerald is not buying the argument/spin that this outing of a CIA officer was done with purely political or retaliatory motivations. Something -- or someone -- changed Fitzgerald's mind around October 2004.

I think this is a mind-blowing development because the 75 page brief to the Court of Appeals makes no less than four references to the "political or retaliatory" motive, but that brief is the very last time Fitz published such language. Now reexamine the words Fitz chose in the press conference -- words that clearly indicate he's not been able to determine "why they did it" -- and you come away with an "ah ha" moment.

Fitz is just walking out to the mound, people. The first inning hasn't even started.

Nothing, and I mean nothing at all, can be found in the press conference, press release or indictment which even remotely suggests that Plame and Wilson are innocent victims in this affair. Fitz certainly doesn't suggest that they were co-conspirators either. But his published language has changed drastically as far as it pertains to the motive for these crimes.

When Fitz submitted his brief to the Court of Appeals around the time of late October 2004, he was apparently comfortable repeating the common perception that the motive was "political gain" or "retaliation" of a critic. But that was before he was able to get some of the dirt out of his eyes. Seeing things more clearly now, he realizes -- and in fact has unequivocally stated -- that he does not know the motive -- "why they did it" was the exact words he used.

Please notice that Judge Hogan's "unanticipated shift" memorandum is a direct result of Cooper's objection to Fitzgerald's second set of subpoenas. Fitz had finally got some of the shit out of his eyes when Cooper was forced to answer the initial questions and this clarity led him in another direction.

Judge Hogan's decision comes down on November 10, 2004. By this time Fitz would have submitted the 75 page brief containing the original "political or retaliation" motives probably a week or two prior to Hogan's Nov. 10 decision.

Mark October 2004 on your calendar as the time Fitz started to see the possibility of a much larger and more intricate conspiracy involving more sinister and pre-meditated intentions. I think that's a fair assessment when you carefully examine everything that Fitz has said since submitting that 75 page brief. In case you've been sleeping, he's not mentioning the word "retaliation" any longer.

But the gatekeepers of the left continue to focus on the "small picture" insisting that these dangerous crimes were committed as retaliation against a whistleblower/hero. Y'all better get educated soon. Fitzgerald has signaled that he's not satisfied this investigation has uncovered the genuine motive. And he's also signaled through his press conference that he will not rest until he can look us in the eye and tell us he did everything he could to solve the riddle of this crime

[stop the bleeding]

17. Well said - you and a few other posters really sum

up the questions and issues very well.

Question, do you happen to know when Fitz started investigating the Forgeries? I can't remember but the timing might be right and that would be a crucial development to want Fitz and the judge to change the direction of the investigation. Maybe I am reading into this too much.

marking my calender for October 2004

[drm604]

16. My guess

is that the real motive was to out Brewster Jennings thus damaging the CIA's WMD info gathering capability. This was done in order to keep them from discovering the lies behind the WMD claims or maybe even a plot to plant WMDs.

[seemslikeadream]

18. Reading between the lines of the Libby indictment'

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051021.html

John W. Dean: 'A Cheney-Libby conspiracy, or worse? Reading between the lines of the Libby indictment'
Posted on Friday, November 04 @ 10:22:50 EST

John W. Dean, Findlaw

In my last column, I tried to deflate expectations a bit about the likely consequences of the work of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald; to bring them down to the realistic level at which he was likely to proceed. I warned, for instance, that there might not be any indictments, and Fitzgerald might close up shop as the last days of the grand jury's term elapsed. And I was certain he would only indict if he had a patently clear case.

Now, however, one indictment has been issued -- naming Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the defendant, and charging false statements, perjury and obstruction of justice. If the indictment is to be believed, the case against Libby is, indeed, a clear one.

Having read the indictment against Libby, I am inclined to believe more will be issued. In fact, I will be stunned if no one else is indicted.

Indeed, when one studies the indictment, and carefully reads the transcript of the press conference, it appears Libby's saga may be only Act Two in a three-act play. And in my view, the person who should be tossing and turning at night, in anticipation of the last act, is the Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.

[Nordmadr]

24. Here is the link to the article you quoted:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html

Olaf

[roguevalley]

19. a catchy song?

[autorank]

26. CS should pay you to edit. Now I understand his meanderings...

...which were great to read since CS has quite a compelling narrative style. This a very instructive precis.

Thanks, recommended.

[dbeach]

27. U SO KIND

Auto rank

Pray that Fitz delivers and does not take the dirty money.
.ole reinnquist NEVER got to spend his.

I bet HELL has enough suites to hold all these villains and their many court intrigues..

I know we are all going to HELL as the losers plunge us further into their version of corporat world..BUT at least we will be there ONLY on a time share..HA HA

While the elites will have permanent residence according to Dante

TRAITORS getr the deepest places.

[autorank]

28. "Next stop, the 9th Circle" Don't wanna go there;)

Dover has a post around here somewhere that is highly istructive.

Seems Fitz was the person who eulogized John O'Niell, former FBI counter terrorism honcho who quit in frustration over the lack of pursuit of Bin Ladin.

Fitz is on record as to which side he's on.

Damn, I'd hate to be * and Rove.

[earth mom]

30. Kick!

:kick: