28 October 2005Politics
I'm Not a Lawyer, But I Did Stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night

If you read through Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby, besides the charges, you'll see a comprehensive chain of events and you'll also see this passage (I. b.) right at the top:

b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

Why mention this if you're not going to make charges related to leaking classified information? Is this simply to lay the groundwork for furhter proceedings? Lawyers care to weigh in? Anyone? Beuller?

Posted by andrew at October 28, 2005 10:51 AM


Comments

brian Says:

I think it's there for this reason:

The authorization of the Special Counsel was to investigate the leak of the name of a CIA operative. Libby's position, and security clearance, is demonstrative of the fact that he was in a special position to safeguard classified information - and, as such, he could rightfully be one of the targets of the Special Counsel's investigation.

If, in the course of the investigation, the Prosecutor determined, for whatever reason (easier to prove, became more important - prosecutors do not like being lied to, etc......), it was more feasible to bring charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury, that does not erase the importance that Libby was in a position to know the classified information that was the subject of the leak and the underlying reason for the investigation.

So I think it's in there to show that he was in a position to know classified information and was aware of his responsibilities to safeguard state secrets, even if he was not charged with a crime directly on that score.

I bet a reporter asked Fitzgerald that question at the press conference though - if you can get a transcript, he may even have answered it.

October 28, 2005 02:19 PM
brian Says:

So in short, it is part of the context of the overall investigation/appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and "story" of the case - whether or not it became directly relevant to any of the particular charges in the indictment.

October 28, 2005 03:54 PM
JenBen Says:

Oh look! you're posting again!

October 30, 2005 09:28 AM




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.americanidle.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1277

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference:
'I'm Not a Lawyer, But I Did Stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night'.