US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, after 3 years of investigation into the Plame leak case, has sought the indictment of no one, so far, for a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (50 US.C 421), and if remarks he made recently with the conviction of I. Lewis Libby for perjury (18 USC 1623), obstruction of justice (18 USC 1503) and  false statements (18 USC 1001) remain in effect, he is unlikely to seek such an indictment in the future.  He said that he considered the investigation complete and that he was going to go back to his regular job, as US Attorney for Northern Illinois in Chicago.

It has not been established conclusively even that there has been a violation of 50USC421.  There are several problems in making such a determination.  Subsection (a) of that statute is reproduced below:

“Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The first thing that needs to be established to institute a legitimate criminal case, then, is that it was a covert agent who was identified or compromised by information disclosed.   It has to be established also the identifier had authorized access to classified information, and that he or she acted intentionally and knowingly.

The term “covert agent” is defined in another section (50 USC 426), and may be read at the link by anyone interested.  It is somewhat lengthy, so I have omitted copying it verbatim.

In navigating the Worldwide Web, one finds numerous mutually contradictory opinions on whether or not Valerie Plame was a covert agent.  I am sure that I cannot judge with great confidence one way or the other, as I have no idea even if some of the statements made about her activities are true.  Some people say that she had an NOC (non-official cover); others deny it.  Some say she hadn’t acted in her covert capacity outside the US in the last five years; others deny it.  I’m sure I don’t know.  However, ultimately, such a finding would have to be made at a trial.  It is not The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Nation, Newsweek, Newsmax or any other news and opinion website that is responsible for such determinations.

The mere fact that Fitzgerald has sought no indictment doesn’t prove that he believes no such crime to have been committed.  He may have a personal conviction that such a crime has indeed taken place, while lacking evidence that he feels will permit a successful prosecution of the matter.  Generally, Fitzgerald has had to decline comment on a lot of questions put to him during the proceedings.

Even if Fitzgerald believes that no such crime has been committed, which is doubtful anyway, his personal conviction doesn’t constitute proof that there was indeed no such crime.  He, like anyone else, is fallible.

So the question is moot.  Anyone presuming to say that there was or was not a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is taking it upon himself to decide a question that, by law, only a judge and jury may decide.  In a word, he is talking hot air.

And, of course, it would be naïve to suppose that a judge and jury always find the correct verdict.  However, their verdict is authoritative, in any case, until such time as an appellate court strikes it down.

In view of the significance of the accusations made by Joseph Wilson IV, Valerie Plame and others, which harmonize remarkably well with the denouement of the whole affair, in that allegations of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program proved unfounded, the Department of Justice and Patrick Fitzgerald were absolutely justified in conducting such an investigation.  They acted within the scope of their department to pursue an investigation, and to subpoena witnesses to testify.

That no indictments have been sought and that it has not even been established that a crime has been committed do not in anyway relieve I. Lewis Libby of his duty to testify truthfully.  If he lied to the grand jury or if he attempted to influence jurors he is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice within the provisions of the statutes linked above.

It is not up to me to decide whether Libby committed perjury or obstructed justice, nor is it up to National Review, Newsmax or Nation to decide.

And generally it is not up to anyone writing for Useless-Knowledge to decide.  I don’t think that very many people at this website or elsewhere have had the opportunity or patience to read memoranda of all the phone calls, meetings and emails that the jury considered in coming to their conclusion.

Decrying the outcome then is a privilege to which they are not entitled.  I realize that it is in the realm of the possible that the judge and jury have made a mistake, but their findings, or the findings of an appellate court, are merely something that must be accepted with resignation.

Libby got caught perjuring himself, and must bear the consequences, notwithstanding whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has been or has been proven to have been violated.

	Web useless-knowledge.com