Mark my words: Fitz just put the world on notice that this goes to the top and that the worm is about to turn.

Listening to Fitz it looks like they may be able (though he is doubtful) to ID that WH persion and that Undersecretary of State.

1) Tenant
2) Bolton
3) Cheney
4) Feith

Absolutely, this is just the tip of the iceberg. London Bridge is falling down.

Sorry, not Feith because he wasn't under the VP.

Assuming that other indictments are upcoming, doesn't it seem likely that one of them would be a federal conspiracy charge considering there was a cooperative effort in both the publicizing of Plame's identity as well as the ensuing cover-up?

FLEITZ?, not FEITH

But, I think FITZ is "walking the cat" back much further.

The trial or plea bargain on these counts will have nothing to do with the underlying causes for the war. It's a simple trial on a narrow indictment. Fitzgerald is just saying that, and none of that kind of argumentive or historical evidence would ever make it into the trial.

IMO, Fitz has this set up like a chessboard. He'll take them down slowly and methodically.

I agree that this indictment is very narrow. No way is Fitz going to play all the cards in the first round. The Libby indictment can always be amended later to include conspiracy charges when more evidence comes out from those who will be subpoenaed to testify later on down the line.

As he showed with Miller, he knows how to turn the screws slowly. I'm still expecting conspiracy to misuse secret government information. That's against the law and a lot easier to prove than the outing.

So, I'm a little confused.

According to Fitzgerald, Libby had four sources for the information. Does Fitzgerald now need to prove which of the sources was THE source? Obviously, if he given Plame's name by all four, still someone had to provide it first.

I'm hoping someone can explain this to me a little better.

1) Maybe Tenet or Fleitz?
2) Bolton
3) Cheney
4) Addington? Cheney's counsel

Shawn, it doesn't matter who told him. Libby was indicted for lying to the grand jury, making false statements (to FBI officers) and, in doing those things, obstructing justice.

I take his answers as simply those of a smart, tough prosecutor - if Libby gives him info implicating other actors, great, he'll go all the way - if Libby doesn't, he's done and satisfied.

Judy: Don't assume that he will gather a lot of new information or subpoena lots of new GJ witnesses.

ARC, you mean if Libby takes the 5th?

You're right, ARC, I shouldn't assume that because I don't know what he's going to do. I should have prefaced it by saying, "he could..." I'm just thinking about some possible scenarios, like we all are.

As to the question about Libby's sources... this is irrelevant... It wouldn't be a crime for individuals with security clearance to tell other individuals with clearance the identity.

The CRIME would have been disclosing, or conspiring to disclose this information to someone outside of this circle of clearance.

I think having clearance is not enough-you have to have a need to know for some reason as well.

Terrific and very educational article on NOC's and what it really means to blow the cover of an NOC (non-official cover) agent from George Friedman of http://www.stratfor.com via poster SilverWings at kos.

~snip~
Then there are those with non-official cover, the NOCs. These agents are the backbone of the American espionage system. A NOC does not have diplomatic cover. If captured, he has no protection. Indeed, as the saying goes, if something goes wrong, the CIA will deny it has ever heard of him. A NOC is under constant pressure when he is needed by the government and is on his own when things go wrong. That is understood going in by all NOCs.
~snip~
The NOCs are the backbone of American intelligence and the ones who operate the best sources -- sources who don't know they are sources. When the CIA says that it needs five to 10 years to rebuild its network, what it is really saying is that it needs five to 10 years to recruit, deploy and begin to exploit its NOCs. The problem is not recruiting them -- the life sounds cool for many recent college graduates. The crisis of the NOC occurs when he approaches the most valuable years of service, in his late 30s or so. What sounded neat at 22 rapidly becomes a mind-shattering nightmare when their two lives collide at 40.

There is an explicit and implicit contract between the United States and its NOCs. It has many parts, but there is one fundamental part: A NOC will never reveal that he is or was a NOC without special permission. When he does reveal it, he never gives specifics. The government also makes a guarantee -- it will never reveal the identity of a NOC under any circumstances and, in fact, will do everything to protect it. If you have lied to your closest friends for 30 years about who you are and why you talk to them, no government bureaucrat has the right to reveal your identity for you. Imagine if you had never told your children -- and never planned to tell your children -- that you worked for the CIA, and they suddenly read in the New York Times that you were someone other than they thought you were.

There is more to this. When it is revealed that you were a NOC, foreign intelligence services begin combing back over your life, examining every relationship you had. Anyone you came into contact with becomes suspect. Sometimes, in some countries, becoming suspect can cost you your life. Revealing the identity of a NOC can be a matter of life and death -- frequently, of people no one has ever heard of or will ever hear of again.

In short, a NOC owes things to his country, and his country owes things to the NOC.
~snip~

There's much more interesting reading here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/18/51459/246

oops that came from
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/10/fitzgerald_spea.html

Remember this name: David Wurmser. He could well be #4.

Why can't stop thinking about this question? "Why does a smart guy do something this stupid?"

You must have a need to know. And if there is any question, a person (with a security clearance) is obligated to ask why the other person (with a security clearance) needs to know and then many more rules follow after that. This is applicable across all branches of government issuing security clearances.

Fitz for prez.

Source #4 is Catherine Martin, at the time she was the "Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs# referred to in the indictment on page 7, para,18.

I meant to say para. 19!

Source #4 is Catherine Martin, at the time she was the "Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs# referred to in the indictment on page 7, para,19.

Sometimes being knowledgeable in certain areas makes you see things in a much too complicated light. I watched Fitz's press conference today, and being a layman, with no legal expertise, heres what I saw...

Fitz is pretty much done digging into this mess. In his mind, he had a specific and narrowly defined mission, and this indictment concludes the execution of the INVESTIGATION phase of that mission. Basically, he seemed to say, in my opinion at least,...."Here it is folks, Libby is the only person here that I can charge with a crime as the result of the two years investigation. If I had of uncovered any other crimes that were prosecutable, I would be prosecuting them. I didn't. What you see is what you get. Cheney, and Rove, get to skate, at least in regards to THIS investigation."

Too many times in the course of the last five years I have been full of hope that these lying bastards in the White House would get their just reward and be taken to task for being the evil lying conniving rotten hypocritical criminal cabal of thieves and traitors that so many of us recognize them as being. The Abu Ghraib abomination. The despicable Gannon/Guckert affair. Gonzales probable lying about his role in Bush's recusal from jury duty, yet still being confirmed as Attorney General. That rabid frothing maniac Bolton being put in a diplomatic role. The Downing Street Memo, for chrissakes, SURELY that would bring them down. Katrina, cronyism, ineptitude, lies, torture. Slimeballs such as Delay getting indicted. Abramoff,the Miers debacle, the list goes on and on. Jeez, just look at that unfathomable clusterfuck unfolding in Iraq, yet these clowns keep telling you its all going peachykeen. And these crooks and liars just keep on going, just like that damned pink bunny on TV.

Nope folks, whatcha see is watcha get; Libby on a skewer, the proverbial sacrificial lamb. And God knows, Bush'll probably pardon the little rat after Fitz spends a few gazillion bucks prosecuting him.

Probably a good thing too. At least Bush didn't need to drag another "trifecta" out of his hat to distract us. Yet.