The New York Times and Washington Post and AP are running highly charged, thinly sourced and puzzling (because they are inconsistent with the record) stories on the Plame grand jury today. Separating the facts from unsourced leaks and innuendo we get this: Karl Rove will voluntarily reappear before the grand jury (still no "target letter" to him) and the prosecutor has told Judtih Miller he wants her to return (apparently involuntarily).
This is the best analysis of what is going on before the grand jury.Pay special attention to the hyperlinked(extensive) list of classified information Plame and Wilson leaked to the press. It is about them and the press persons (notably Matt Cooper) and not about Rove and Libby.
The details on CIA methods for collecting information, contacts in specific countries, and details on the nuclear ambitions of countries (e.g., Iraq) all come from Wilson, who learned much from Plame and her cohorts. And when the press came into[sic] to verify Wilson — who did he refer them to? Not Libby or Rove!
Now, if the reporters knew the information was classified and they passed it on to the general public that could be a serious issue — though getting the media on this is nearly impossible as history has shown.
In summary:
(1) An indictment regarding leaking Plame's employment at CIA is highly doubtful. It is very likely many people knew where she worled in the social circles of DC and Northern Virginia, making it an open secret. Plus, the person passing the information on must know she was covert and with intent to do harm to her work (not her) and the CIA's mission
(2) An indictment for obstructing justice is also not likely since everyone on the administration side has been cooperating openly and easily.
(3) Indictments agains[t] journalists are hard to come by — doubt that will happen.
(4) Leaving the only possible indictments to be against Plame, Wilson and Plames CIA cohorts.
(5) And Fitzgerald, realizing this is a high profile case and has to be air tight if he wants to go against the administration — may punt.
I disagee with this analysis, in that I think some reporters may well have acted so imprudently that they, too, may be charged. But otherwise, I think the analysis makes far more sense and is far more consistent with the public record than the unsourced rumor mongering in the New York Times and Washington Post both of which have reporters at jeopardy in this matter.
Clarice Feldman 10 07 05
Share
