Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 6

Fitzgerald investigation: press conference passages
In an attempt to shorten this article (at least temporarily while doing that), I'm moving passages from this section to this talk page; I've added a link to Wikiquotes with some of the sentences in it already, and I added some material to that Wikiquotes page on Patrick Fitzgerald. [I also updated this article w/ some new sourced information.] --NYScholar 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason. It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held. So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works. Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts. It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged. Agent Eckenrode [the leader of the team of investigators and prosecutors] doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that. FITZGERALD: That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts. There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public. And as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't. FITZGERALD: And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date. But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth. It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear. And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time. FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate. That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. . ..

In the October 28, 2005 press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald continued: And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs. FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what it [was] that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it. And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story. What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?" And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times. FITZGERALD: And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter; that he didn't even know if it was true. And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it. Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing. He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new. FITZGERALD: When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls. It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away ''if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment''. In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife. He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time. FITZGERALD: Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges. The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials. Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby. But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th. FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office. So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as "Wilson's wife," working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas. In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials. It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson. FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday. In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip. FITZGERALD: So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it. But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters. In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife. And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson. After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003. During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer. During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th. In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife." FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. 'It was false''. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.''' [That is the basis of the five indictments of Libby. (NYS)] Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us. FITZGERALD: ''We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different''. But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law. But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules. So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity. Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system. . . . (Italics added)

Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the investigation and what, as its lead prosecutor, he could and could not reveal legally at the time: QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking? FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. '''OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.''' I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. FITZGERALD: '''This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.''' Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can." You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between. You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head. FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know. And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it." In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us. And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? FITZGERALD: Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray? And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make. I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge. 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. FITZGERALD: I will say this: ''Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so''. But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here. QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have evidence that the vice president of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie about leaking? FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment. Now, let me back up, because I know what that sounds like to people if they're sitting at home. We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment. FITZGERALD: I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses. We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act. But as to any person you asked me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything. Please don't take that as any indication that someone has done something wrong. That's a standard practice. If you followed me in Chicago, I say that a thousand times a year. And we just don't comment on people because we could start telling, "Well, this person did nothing wrong, this person did nothing wrong," and then if we stop commenting, then you'll start jumping to conclusions. So please take no more. '''QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A, who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.''' QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged? FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "[I want] to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years." '''We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.''' And '''one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."''' FITZGERALD: I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know, other than what's charged in the indictment. '''It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way.''' We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment. (Italics and bold print added) [I've put it in small print to take up less room; see the note with full transcript; bold is there but doesn't show up as well in small print. Text is here in case the transcript disappears from online sites.] --NYScholar 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for ongoing vigilance in editing BLP (biographies of living persons)
Earlier versions of this article (and others relating to "Valerie Plame" and "Plamegate" [the "Plame affair"]) did not (and some still do not have) adequately-checked and authenticated reliable sources of information. These articles still need vigilant work (in my view). (See top tags relating to WP:BLP). Given that Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors cannot put rumors and innuendoes and unsubstantiated "theories" in this article about a living person. (Note: The "neutrality" of some articles relating to this one is "disputed" and subject to ongoing review by administrators.) [I re-organized some secs of my replies above.]--NYScholar 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

who was official 'A'?
i thought Rove was official 'A'? is it now believed that Armitage was official 'A'? Anthonymendoza 18:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. Please see the current version of the article:Valerie Plame.  The article by Lewis cited in the note in para. one of that section is an archived article from The New York Times and accessible to TimesSelect subscribers.  The phrase "the original leaker" comes from that article. Since quotations from Fitzgerald's press conference reference(s) to "official 'A'" are not currently in the body or notes of this article (quotations extensively edited earlier; see talk above), I deleted the reference to "official 'A'" in the section heading and replaced the reference to "official 'A'" in the text of that section with the phrase "the original leaker" quoted from Lewis' article cited; "primary source" and "first source" are also phrases used in the press reports about the late August/September/October 2006 news revelations re: Armitage.  See the sources cited in the notes throughout.   --NYScholar 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The passage in Fitzgerald's news conference (scroll up) is:

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife. QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged? FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "[I want] to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."


 * The "senior official . . . who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife" apparently "first" turned out not to be "a senior official at the White House" but a (soon-to-be former) official at the State Department (Armitage); he was the one who, according to later revelations, first "had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife."
 * There are some assumptions in the reporter's question about "Official A", but Fitzgerald did not and would not confirm or deny his assumptions about anyone in his reply to that question (that is, he didn't "bite" the "bait"). He did not identify either Rove or Armitage publicly by name in that October 28, 2005 press conference (about the indictment of Libby), and he goes on to explain clearly why he would not discuss hypothetical matters concerning other people who are not the subject of and not named in the indictment.  He was willing only to discuss Libby, the subject of the indictment and of the press conference about it.  (I've also deleted the erroneous editorial interpolation in the quotation above in talk too: it read "[later (in Sept. 2006) revealed publicly as Richard Armitage, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State]".)
 * In the press conference passages quoted above (in this talk page), Fitzgerald refers to Libby as "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter" --not Robert Novak; see Plame affair--adding "And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly" (italics added). Fitzgerald does not discuss other matters not relating directly to the indictment; the indictment is based on Libby's perjury and lies in the course of the investigation that, Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury allege, impeded the investigation; not on the leak itself.  Being "first" etc. is not the basis of the indictment; the basis of the indictment is Libby's alleged lying to Justice Dept. investigators and to the Grand Jury about what they later came to regard as facts.  In that press conference Fitzgerald would not and did not discuss the so-called "Official A" because the person that the indictment and the reporter deem "Official A" and being "at the White House" (or a "White House official") is not Libby, and Libby was the subject of the press conference.  For discussion and hypelinked sources linking "Official 'A'" and Karl Rove, see, as examples, the following thread at TalkLeft "'Official A' is Karl Rove" (10/28/2005) and the following article from The Washington Post: "Democrats Demand Rove's Firing", by Dana Milbank and Carol D. Leonnig (10/31/2005); or Google "official A Karl Rove." From Milbank and Leonnig: "Another warning sign for Rove was in the phrasing of Friday's indictment of Libby. Fitzgerald referred to Rove in those charging papers as a senior White House official and dubbed him 'Official A.' In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged. No other official in the investigation carries such an identifier."

On July 11, 2006, Robert Novak confirmed that Rove was his second source for his article that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, the source who confirmed what Armitage had told him [Novak].[(See note) 42] Rove has not been indicted as a result of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury Investigation.[(See note) 43]
 * For discussion of related issues, see also "Sources: State Department Official Source of Plame Leak," CNN August 30, 2006. --NYScholar 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The crucial issue
It seems to me the crucial issue here is not whether or not a crime was committed but what the intentions of Rove, Libby, Cheney, and possibly Bush were? To get one of their own operatives assassinated? What was their motivation in leaking the information? If it was to undermine the operations of their own government and possibly get this woman killed for her husband's willingness to disagree with them, then who cares if they broke the law. The act itself is so repugnant that it strains belief to think that it could have been committed by our own executive department.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.209.38 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2007

Crucial Questions
Obviously, this would all be opinion, but I was wondering if any of you had an answer to this question. The great controversy surrounding this issue seems to be: did any of the government officials involved break the law in outing this agent? My question is: why would they want to out her? If the answer is revenge, then what did they hope to achieve? Her death? If so, this seems pretty damning on those involved whether or not a crime has been committed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.209.110 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 January 2007

Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment
--I didn't have time to look over the whole article, but I deleted some of the graffiti at the top of the article. (there may be more buried inside.) Geoffrey.landis 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a source for this?
"Officers at United States embassies often brag about the fact that staff members are CIA. Former CIA agents like to make mention that worked for the Agency in the past."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.190.250 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 March 2007

CBC link
I do want to show sources properly. The current video link for the CBC interview is http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/valerie_plame_interview.html. However, I think after a time that link ends. Kyle Andrew Brown 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

career section
Could that section be split into smaller ones--it's hard to edit now, and a lot to read. It also seems to me that the newer material in it makes some of the older stuff irrelevant, as more has become known. However, some of the stuff that's wrong may still be relevant as documentation of errors that were made before the most recent disclosures. 64.160.39.153 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article follows a mostly-chronological organization; the material is relevant to the controversy: see Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:POV as well as Neutral point of view. I consolidated the material about the hearing and put it in its own section in chronological order of article, adding a cross-ref. under heading "Career" in the article.  It is possible to find the updated information that way; that the details of her career are the topic of considerable controversy and disputes in the press coverage of her relation to the Plame affair is very important and, in my view, not to be deleted or omitted otherwise. --NYScholar 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that a considerable amount of the article text is devoted to presenting arguments for and against V. Wilson's reported status as a formerly covert CIA agent. This issue was very much in question and couldn't be answered definitively, so the article instead gave the best available sourced information on both sides.  However, stuff that came out in the recent Waxman hearings (and to some extent in the Libby trial) obsoletes some of the prior uncertain stuff.  So I think streamlining is possible.  For example, unless someone credible is contesting it, I think General Hayden answered the covertness question once and for all, in the statement he cleared for the Waxman hearing. 64.160.39.153 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

24.136.114.216 Inserted a combative and radically WP:POV addition to the House Oversight section that directly contradicted the information regarding Plame's covert status that is documented in the Career section. I removed this entirely as it had no information that was not covered in the Career section. KellyLogan 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)