Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

(emphasis mine) How can you say there is no evidence that she was undercover when you have the Spokesman for the CIA testifying under oath that she was? That is evidence. The eight pages of classified court documents that convinced three judges of disparate political stripes that this was a case of national security is pretty suggestive that a crime was committed. I am certain that Libby and the judges have a great deal of evidence and know exactly her status and importance but they are not allowed to say anything because of A) the rules of the grand jury and B) the rules of the CIA.

Fitzgerald is indicting Libby on perjury and obstruction because they are easier to prove than the "intent" part of the IIPA law. He can't get Libby's intent because Libby lied to him. Plus those other crimes have a longer sentence. That is what prosecutors do--go for the gravest crime committed that is easiest to prove.

The argument that Plame wasn't covert is a "talking point" that is just gibberish--you think if you keep repeating it it will drown out all the known facts, and you (all) are doing a pretty good job of it, but only because you are all such good dittoheads.

Don't worry, there are more indictments to come. Fitzgerald indicted 65 defendents before he worked his way up the food chain to Governor Ryan--who he referred to in those previous indictments as "State Official A." (Source)

Stotch has been told a dozen times now that the IIPA is not the only relevant statute. His indifference to really learning anything is staggering and disappointing.

For that matter, is there no statute governing the unauthorized release of classified info by someone who's been issued a security clearance?

If not, what the hell does "classified" mean? Pretty please don't share this with anyone?

"They [CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.

IF she were a NOC, wouldnt the CIA itself have stopped novak? who actually leaked the name publically. until then, it had not been discussed in the public correct? and the CIA itself did not stop him. i think this closes the case. or am i a dumb f*ck?

additonally, just for fun to add some depth here, novak dicusses the admin "officials" and what they told him:

"Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."

Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission"

no mention by the admin "officals" of her status.

the dems are just silly. funny for sure. kind of sad. but "silly" is the only word i can come up with. they just aren't to be taken seriously anymore. bafoonish. clown-like. foppish. those come to mind too. an amazement to watch though. in a sad kind of way.

hey, here is a future trivia question, see if you know the answer: what do the whigs, the know-nothings, the free soilers and the democrats have in common?

James, what evidence do you have of a 'fishing expedition'? The charges brought against Libby are those directly relevant to the obstruction of this investigation. I've already compared and contrasted with Starr's actual fishing expedition.

This is similar to the claim that another's lie "was only about sex."

A violation is a violation. But some are stronger than others. The real issue here is the background story that the left want's to get to, and this indictment is the only morsel to hang their collective hats on. A very tiny morsel at that.

Libby will not be called upon to prove Ms. Plame was covert;

Typo. The above should read:

Libby will not be called upon to prove Ms. Plame was not covert;

You have still completely failed to show any evidence that she was not a covert officer as defined by the legislation.

And apparently no one has shown any evidence to the contrary. When this goes to a court of law, Libby will not be called upon to prove Ms. Plame was covert; rather, it will be the responsibility of the prosecution to present evidence that she was.

What Leopold is doing is predicting that this will not happen, because in his opinion (also mine, but he didn't ask me) there is no such evidence because in his opinion (also mine, but he didn't ask me) she was not covert.

And since neither Leopold nor I are going to be in court arguing either side, your asking here for evidence that Ms. Plame was not covert, is simply moronic.

Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford obviously do not understand what they are writing about. They say someone working under cover at Langley is a no, no. Nothing could be further from the truth. A very large share of the people working at Langley are under cover as they rotate back and forth between the US and foreign posting.

All you have done is repeat the assertion.

Provide some reason to believe your assertion.

Such "UNBIASED" observers as Attorney General Ashcroft accepted the charge. What evidence do you have that he was incorrect?

My universe is bigger than that. It contains a war, with more killed today.

Don't Think of an Elephant

Since when is giving national security classified information to our enemies through the press not a criminal act?

Maybe we should ask that guy who got a slap on the wrist for using his pants as a filing cabinet for classified information.

Investigating the disclosure of classified information is a very reasonable thing to do. That is what Fitzgerald was tasked to do and that is what he did. Lying to the FBI and falsely testifying under oath are not reasonable things to do. Not only are those crimes in and of themselves, its reasonable to assume there are one or more underlying crimes that have been covered up by the lying and obstruction of justice. That is precisely why perjury and obstruction of justice are illegal and why they are prosecuted.

Not to worry though, by falsely blaming journalists for the leak, Libby succeeded in delaying the investigation until after the 2004 elections. For this, he will receive a presidential pardon, and the corruption in government will go on.