I sure hope someone from Walton’s office is reading this.

LHP is right, you ARE good; that aside, you are still walking into a fool’s errand on this issue. Remember when I said I hire a professional to do this? This issue is one of the reasons why. And you may think you are going to leave it up to â€the lawyers†here to argue further. Good luck. It ain’t coming from this corner. I say all this tongue in cheek; but seriously, this issue has been a nightmare for a long time. Here is the only semi-cogent thought I have to relate. You are prohibitively giving the defense credit because the issue of covertness could be in play. And you do so because Libby made it the primary portion of his argument in this regard. If I were Libby, I would not have done that. I would have made it far secondary to the scienter, or knowledge, of any possible status. Libby did indeed make the scienter argument, but almost as an afterthought to arguing the covert issue. I think the court (Walton) long ago probably made the determination that Plame was covert, both on his own and adopting previous findings by a sister division. It became a done deal with Fitzgerald’s exhibits filed with his sentencing memo. This is only a matter of which you emphasize, but it is critical in my opinion. I continue to wonder who is running the defense show and what they are thinking.

okay — i admit, like bmaz — that
trying to predict sentencing calculations
is an endeavour best left to experts. . .

but what IS NEW, and IS AVAILABLE,
already, from team-libby’s OTHER
FILING, tonight, is new details,
new tid-bits — of what those support
letters contain. . .

like scooter’s efforts on behalf
of another white house staffer
accused of leaking classified
information to a newspaper. . .

yep — he’s apparently been
here, before — in the role of
pro-bono lawyer — not client.

the letter from which this was
quoted may well be one deserving
of some redaction, so i will not
speculate about identities — no,
as to the incident, i’ll patiently
wait to match the above-quoted, to
whatever is made available on, or
after june 5, 2007. . .

that said. . . i think it permissable
to speculate about how this incident
might have influenced the arc of scooter’s
later trajectory — and his life — since then. . .

so, i cannot help wondering whether
scooter â€went to school†in some
measure on this case, especially
insofar as it might have helped
him learn where the absolute edge
of â€a policy disagreement†becomes,
well. . . â€a leak to a newspaperâ€. . .

do take a squint. . .

I would like to point out one more problem with Libby’s argument. To the extent that the analysis depends on the claim that Fitzgerald did not establish the point by a preponderance of the evidence, nor arguably attempt to, that is due to the fact that he was specifically precluded from doing so by pre-trial evidentiary motions in limine determinations made by the court limiting discussion of those issues. But said preclusion was the direct result of Defendant Libby’s having specifically requested it. So Libby precludes the matter from being sufficiently established, and then argues that, since it was not established, he cannot be sentenced under it. This is circular and bullshit. Trial tactics have consequences, sometimes when they don’t work out, they bite you in other ways. I am not necessarily saying I think the court should, or will, enhance under cross-reference linkage; but this argument against it is baloney.

Marcy, I’m trying to read about St. Libby, but I get an error.

EW – No question. But it is the way they pay the gambit that I question. First off, i didn’t think Walton was likely to enhance under this element to start with; and just because he asked for it, doesn’t mean Fitzgerald did either. You don’t come into this with a flat hand, youcome in high and let the result come back down to where you reasonably think it ought ot be. But there is a vast difference between probing what the law (guidelines) allow, and playing loose with the facts. Fitzgerald came in high through his guideline analysis, but is consistent and reasonable, under the circumstances of the case, as to the facts applied. Libby, on the other hand, continues to be duplicitous, contorted and to cute by a half with the fact application to his legal analysis. In my mind, this makes a difference. Walton has given plenty of indications that he is weary of this from the defense. It is one thing to do before conviction; to keep at it after conviction when trying to mitigate your sentence is counter-productive.

bmaz

Wait until you see the sentencing memo. Argh. Puke. Vomit. Going to pour a glass of wine now, and only partly because Typepad hates me.

Again, the wheel turns, and it is all about being IIPA Covert.

Here at TNH, and FDL, it is â€obvious†to everyone that she was.

Elsewhere, it is not ovbious. Or that it was not proven. Or that there was no way to prove it, or at least no real effort to prove it, or, maybe, that it couldn’t be proven because of known or unknown restraints..

Even according to Judge Tatel, when the government subpoenaed Judy (and the appeals court approved that subpoena), they believed if Libby had leaked Plame’s identity and told Judy Plame was covert, it might have been an IIPA violation (relates to predicate 5)

I applaud your dutiful recitation of the gloss Fitzgerald put on his Miller affidavit; in another context, he could have argued that Miller’s testimony was vital because he *might* have disclosed to Ms. Miller the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s body.

As best we know (neither side called Tenet or Cheney), no one at the CIA told anyone at State or the WH that Ms. Plame had classified status – that was the trial record established by Fitzgerald. And he was aware of this little speed bump long before he finally got Judy’s story, since he had interviewed everyone including Cheney and tenet before then.

My guess – Fitzgerald was not so sure a judge would jail Judy in pursuit of a perjury charge, so he pretended he had a big national security thing going. Not big enough to interview Dickerson or Gregory to double-check (or discredit) Fleischer, but big.

Well – in other news, this from the Times story about Ms. Plame’s suit against the CIA had a fascinating detail that was news to me:

Valerie Wilson, the former intelligence operative at the heart of an investigation that reached into the White House, sued the Central Intelligence Agency in federal court in New York yesterday over its refusal to allow her to publish a memoir that would discuss how long she had worked for the agency.

Although that information is set out in an unclassified letter to Ms. Wilson that has been published in the Congressional Record, the C.I.A. contends that her dates of service remain classified and may not be mentioned in “Fair Game,†the memoir Ms. Wilson hopes to publish in October.

Ahh, the Congressional Record! I know you’ll find it eventually, but let’s read on:

The C.I.A. acknowledged that the dates of Ms. Wilson’s employment had mistakenly been disclosed, although a spokesman said that did not mean the information was no longer classified.

“Frankly,†said the spokesman, Mark Mansfield, the release of the information in 2006, in response to a query from Ms. Wilson about retirement benefits, was “an honest-to-goodness administrative error.â€

“The letter contained classified information and should not have been mailed to her,†Mr. Mansfield said, referring to Ms. Wilson. “As soon as it was discovered, we took steps to rectify the error, including notifying the clerk of the House of Representatives.â€

The letter, from February 2006, was entered into the Congressional Record by Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, in January 2007. Mr. Inslee was introducing legislation to allow Ms. Wilson to qualify for a government annuity.

The letter said that Ms. Wilson had worked for the government since Nov. 9, 1985, for a total of “20 years, 7 days,†including “six years, one month and 29 days of overseas service.â€

Christine Hanson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Inslee, said the congressman had assured himself that the document was not classified before disclosing it.

Very interesting – as I had noted in several posts going back several months, and as recently as Wednesday (Challenge Round), the CIA pension benefit is based on her service abroad, and Joe and Val ought to have access to this info. How odd to be right.

*If* the letter included specific dates of service, we mihgt get somewhere. Shucks – here is the text (mind the Freeper link):

DEAR MRS. WILSON, This letter is in response to your recent telephone conversation with regarding when you would be eligible to receive your deferred annuity. Per federal statute, employees participating under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Special Category, who have acquired a minimum of 20 years of service, are eligible to receive their deferred annuity at their Minimum Retirement Age (MRA). Your MRA is age 56, at which time you’ll be eligible to receive a deferred annuity.

Your deferred annuity will be based on the regular FERS computation rate, one percent for every year of service vice the FERS Special rate of 1.7% for every year of service. You will receive 1.7% for each year of overseas service, prorated on a monthly basis, after January 1, 1987 in the calculation of your annuity. Our records show that since January 1, 1987, you have acquired 6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service.

Following is a list of your federal service:

Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ã(P/T 40), from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006–total 20 years, 7 days.

Based on the above service and your resignation on January 9, 2006, your estimated deferred annuity is $21,541.00 per year, or $1795 per month, beginning at age 56.

The above figures are estimates for your planning purposes. The Office of Personnel Management, as the final adjudicator of creditable service and annuity computations, determines final annuity amounts. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

I am reasonably certain Joe won’t be returning my phone calls, but one of the lefty bloggers ought to make or break some news here, yes? Perhaps Ms. Plame could ask for a double check of the overseas dates and get a more specific accounting? I’ll probably ask my Congressman to make the same request, but he’ll ignore me too.

Food for thought.

Tom

Now you’re attacking conservative judges?

Sorry–given that:

Libby’s lies pretty transparently served to hide his conversations with Novak (which he lied about) and Judy
Before his meeting with Judy, Dick Cheney ordered Libby to leak something very classified to her–and Libby’s explanations for what that very classified thing is doesn’t hold up
Libby exhibited knowledge that Plame’s identity was sensitive to Judy, Ari, and Addington

Your continued efforts to claim IIPA wasn’t a real possibility when Fitz interviewed Plame just fall apart. And if you read Fitz’ statements, he STILL seems to believe Libby told Judy Plame was covert, just that Judy didn’t write that down.