Jay: I believe a witness may disclose their testimony before a grand jury (like Cooper and Miller seem to have done).

The hypocrisy is amazing. A group of people who make their livings based on others leaking information to them are raking someone else over the coals because they leaked information to a member of that group.

I guess leaks are bad when they get someone you don't like in trouble. They are good when it enhances your own reputation.

I know exactly what you mean about leaks and 'anonymous' sources. I couldn't help posting on a story in the paper recently...Washington Post was the source. The story, about leaks, was 7 paragraphs long. The first three end:
"according to a source"
"the source said"
"the source said"
then a quote from Rove, then a brief summary of the 'case', than another "according to a source", and finally a Rove denial and blurb about how what he may or may not have done may not even be a crime.

Brief story about leaks, 7 paragraphs, 4 of them featuring information attributed to a leaking source.

I just have to say that was the funniest post heading I have seen in,oh,about a year.

Laughed.So.Hard.

great!

Nicely done, Jay.

But I offer one other possibility:

They may be reporting on hopes, not leaks.
They may simply be reporting what they hope will be the result, regardless of the (limited to non-existent) facts.

I think that most of the leaks are either from those who gave testimony and/or their lawyers and from the Whitehouse trying to manage the fallout from possible indictments. I don't think that they are from illegal sources. Why would the prosecutor and his staff start leaking now after being quiet all this time?

I think in these investigations the source of the leaks have a rather simple explanation. The prosecutor, Fitzgerald isn't working alone. He has dozens of assistants and staffers. All of them are (like everyone in DC) thinking about future employment. They get called by an old friend who is a mid-level staffer for Senator XYZ. How does he ingratiate himself to a contact for possible employment? With the preferred cash in DC, insider information. Same goes for the press. People leak to a reporter because next month or next year you might need help putting a spin on a bad situation.

Funniest thing about this whole BS is for four years we've heard libs and the MSM complaining that this is the "Most secretive administration ever." And now they are having to fake outrage over information being leaked to the press to counter one of their lies.

To my knowledge not one jot of info has come out of the Fitzgerald investigation, Jay, you are completely wrong. If you go back and read everything written on this (I have been reading everything I can find on it for months now) all the "sources" so far have been identified as “familiar with the testimony" of someone, or similar read-between-the-lines language. This leaves little doubt that they are, in fact, the lawyers of those involved in the investigation, speaking off the record. Anyone who testifies before the grand jury is free to speak about all aspects of their testimony and the questions asked of them.

Now the real hypocrisy comes when you make up this "leak" story about Fitzgerald, (a desperate attempt to discredit him perhaps?) when he hasn't let one leak out of the 2 year investigation, and yet when Ken Starr had a direct line to the WaPo and other media outlets not a peep was heard from the right about the importance of grand juries remaining shrouded in secrecy. In summary then, Jay, you are wrong. Ken Starr was an unprofessional partisan hack, and Fitzgerald is the model of propriety - a candid and thorough investigator.

Speaking of leaks, read this:
Phoney Baloney
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200510240816.asp

Swoop:
How do individuals giving testimony know that
Fitzgerald is going to indict two people?

Robert Novak is the criminal. If he was told her name why did he print it and tell basicly the world? Where is their accountability? I'd like to see some brave lawyer sue him for treason.

The magnifiers of the 'tempest in a teapot' have vague chemical memories of Ted Agnew embedded in their DNA.

Hmmm.

What I find curious is that reporters want to be shielded from prosecution under a federal shield law, but they also want anyone to actually leaks to reporters to be cast in irons.

Anybody else see this is as a bit schizo?

I'd like to see some brave lawyer sue him for treason.

Treason is a crime against a country. It's not something you sue over.

Treason!? It is not even evident that Novak broke any law.

I'd say that a former ambassador going around spreading lies about an adminstration during a war is treasonous.

George where did you read that? Show me the source and We can discuss. My bet is that what you read is just idle speculation or "hopes."(see Tom_with_a_dream a few posts above mine)

The people testifying before the grand jury are under no legal obligation to keep their testimony silent. They (or their lawyers or spokesmen) can say whatever they want. This probably accounts for much if not all of the "leaking" going on (unlike Starr, who was hauled up in front of a judge, IIRC, to answer for the leaking sieve his investigation was...). Other means of disclosure might be approaches by Fitzgerald to the targets' attorneys, letters of intent, etc., which once again aren't under the grand jury secrecy provisions.

HTH.

Cheers,

I have to say, I totally agree with you, Jay. Hypocrisy abounds. To spend 2 years and millions of dollars only to, possibly, indict on what Sen. Hutchison refers to as "technicalities", is so...so....ummm....familiar! The only thing missing is an intern...and a dress.

splashtc:

Do your homework. Unless you actually live on another planet with different laws, it is not a crime to mention the name of an employee of the CIA when they are not covert agents; and in addition, after a 5 year span of converting from covert to overt.

By the way, Joe Wilson outed his own wife in June 2004 when he allowed her name to be listed as his wife in an article about himself. Do you think he needs to be investigated for this phantom crime also? And what about George Tenet, who gave up her name to Dick Cheney? You do remember George Tenet, right? Former CIA Director?

(Let me help you out here, those were sarcastic and rhetorical questions. You don't need to answer them.)

Jay Tea:

Great post, and I loved the title.

TB

Swoop:
Right here:
http://financialtimes.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=FT.com+%2F+US+%2F+CIA+leak+-+Indictments+in+CIA+leak+case+%02018about+to+be+handed+down%02019&expire=&urlID=16022681&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2Fcefd360c-4598-11da-981b-00000e2511c8%2Cft_acl%3D%2Cs01%3D1.html&partnerID=1744

Oh Swoop,

Come Out, Come Out, Where-ever You Are....

Hellooooo...... [cue the crickets]

Yeah, really. The "two indictments" story is all over the news. How could you not know?

Oh, you mean this?

"On Tuesday night, news reports, supported by a source close to the lawyers involved in the case, said that target letters to those facing indictment were being issued, with sealed indictments to be filed on Wednesday and released by the end of the week."

Even if this is (whihc is almost certainly isn't) info from someone on the prosecutors side what harm does this"leak" do? Answer: none.

Technicality FTLOG?

Fizgerald was granted
"all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" [which] is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses"
by the acting Attorney General on Feb 6th 2004.

From Fitzgerald's website

Technicality indeed!

George if you're talking about the rumour that TOMORROW two indictments (might) be announced (or might be sealed) then please, give me a break. So, 24 hours ahead of time rumours fly about what will be announced. Jeepers creepers! The investigation is leaking like a sieve! Whatever.

TB, your panties are all twisted.
Robert Novak has a lot of accountability here.
"They 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.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/

Swoop....I'll bet you blocked your own team's goal, didn't ya?

...in high school, that is.

Apologies FTLOG, I guess I missed the sarcasm there. However, I do think any comparison here with the Clinton impeachment is misleading. This is testimony beforea Federal Grand Jury investigating the actions of Gov. officals and Fitzgerald was specifically told to prosecute an interference with his investigation. Contrast that with lurid and clearly politically motivated sexual harrasment charges from relating to another relationship, that was clearly politically motivated. (A CIVIL case that got thrown out of court no less)

The Lewinsky saga was the 'criminalisation of politics.' This is criminal behaviour at the highest levels of government, behaviour threating our national security, during wartime no less.

splashtc:

Apparently, you're not man or woman enough to wear my "panties", twisted or not.

"They asked me not to use my name" doesn't constitute a broken law, it is a request. When has a request ever stopped any reporter from reporting on fact (or whatever they want)?

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame both used her name publicly before Novak ever wrote his article. Plame in 2000 publicly used her own name while donating to Al Gore's Presidential campaign and Joe Wilson one month prior with the article about himself I mentioned in my previous comment. So...who cares what Novak wrote? It's *moot*, because of these reasons and because *no law was broken*.

This was nothing more than a political story. Joe Wilson is a known liar (he lied about his own Niger report...no intelligence agency in the world has backed down from their intelligence findings). He's been proven to be a political hack and both his family and the media have their "panties in a twist" over being discredited.

As I said, do your homework.

One more quick point about Wilson's report from Niger, his report supported what other intelligence agencies reported about WMDs in Iraq; his accounts after filing his report go against *his own findings*.

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame both used her name publicly before Novak ever wrote his article. Plame in 2000 publicly used her own name while donating to Al Gore's Presidential campaign and Joe Wilson one month prior with the article about himself I mentioned in my previous comment.

Did they put "CIA operative" next to her name on any of those occasions? No? Then it isn't really relevant is it? You propose that the fact that she had a name means no one could have outed her as a CIA operative. You do understand which part constitutes the alleged crime, right? (I'll give you a hint, it isn't her name).

This thread and most of the comments on it are built on two non-issues. First, as has been repeated ad nauseum, the fact that Valerie Plame existed or had a name is not what was secret. Being covert doesn't necessarily mean you're a phantom whom no one knows exists. Geez, this gets answered so many times it's unbelievable. It's the fact that she worked for the CIA that was a secret. All of the conjecture aside, I have yet to see any concrete evidence that her employment by the CIA was a known fact before Novak revealed it.

Second, this whole leaking/hypocrisy thing is a real red herring. Everyone in DC leaks. That's a known fact. It was the content of the leaks, not the fact that leaking occurred, that Fitz is investigating. There's no hypocrisy in trying to get leaked information while condemning someone for leaking classified information. Do you really think this is about stoppping leaking in Washington?

You do understand which part constitutes the alleged crime, right? (Mantis)

and

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that her employment by the CIA was a known fact before Novak revealed it. (Chris)

I may be wrong here but I thought the problem was that someone (Cheney, Libby, Novak, The Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy, etc) leaked Plame's identity as a "spy".
If this is correct, then I admit to Mantis that I do not understand where the crime is. Whoever leaked it, who cares?!

And as people knowing where she worked, I do believe I have heard of printed evidence that she was a CIA employee (I'll hope George has that, I don't right at my finger tips). But it goes back to Mantis' point, it is no crime for you to do a whois search and "out" me as an employee of whatnot. Same for Ms. Plame. She was a regular employee, not a "spy".

That is the problem with this whole 2-year investigation.

That people may have lied to the Grand Jury, they would be good points. I still have a problem with people being held accountable for every single utterance from their lips, years after the fact, especially when the topic was such a non-issue as the non-spy wife who got an unqualified guy a well-payihng job in Niger to lie about WMD.

I should've set my sites higher.

Thanks to Kevin for the "easy to find on the Internet" info on Plame's name and employment status.

Tom_with_annoying_underscores:

You're right that you don't understand (can't understand... won't understand?) where the crime is. Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) existed. Yes, everyone knew that, or rather anyone who cared to look her up in the phone book or who's who could know that. The problem comes in when she was identified as an "operative" - journo code for a CIA spy, not desk jockey or whatever - by Novak. There is no evidence that anyone knew she was CIA before Novak's column, as her close friends and nieghbours told the FBI two days ago, they just thought she was a mother and wife of Joe Wilson that worked at an energy consulting firm. Now, Novak can write what he likes with out getting in any trouble about this, but whoever told him about this and suggested that he write about it, is quite possibly in some depp doo-doo. Knowingly outing a spy is a crime, and to quote George H W Bush, who ever did this is "the worst kind of traitor."

good recap swoop- but I think Novak is the traitor to our government for knowingly outing a spy. The press is not talking about it because they don't attack one of their own. We are the government and should hold the press accountable.