Incorrect. Please show the specific citation from the Libby trial transcripts wherein either an official representative from the CIA claimed that Plame was "covert" as pertains to the IIPA, or the authenticated documents provided as evidence at the Libby trial which show the same thing. I'll make it easy for you, they didn't. If they had done so, there would be a legal finding of fact which would have ended this debate long ago. Instead, we have hearsay evidence provided by both prosecution and defense which voice opinions on whether Plame was covert or not, but no finding of fact was completed, so all we still have is speculation.
That's part of the rub - the CIA repeatedly has refused to make such a statement. Even the original request by the CIA to the DOJ was simply a request for investigation into what might have been dissemination of classified material, which is covered under a different statute that the IIPA. So apparently the CIA was unable or unwilling to call Plame a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes despite the fact that they used the term in-house to cover a wide range of operatives. It is this problem in translation which has many (like the rabid posters on the prior pages) claiming that Plame was incontrovertibly "covert" per the law when in fact not even the CIA was willing to make that jump. Perhaps our learned (and rabid) posters are exercising their clairvoyance, in which case I really need to go grab some tinfoil for a new hat.
Another point worth mentioning is that a few of the slower amongst us have concluded that since Fitzgerald made a statement in his sentence recommendation that Plame was clearly covert per the statute, that some kind of legal fact had been established. Simply put, it had not. If it had, the debate would most certainly be over. But in fact, there was never a finding of fact regarding Plame's status and the governing US Codes. Never.
Let me also point out that Fitzgerald is proceeding as he should. After using legal facts to convict Libby of perjury and making false statements, and the obstruction of justice which they contributed to, Fitzgerald proceeded to make his sentencing recommendation. The evidentiary requirements for the sentencing recommendation are much less strict than they are during the trial. Sentence recommendations often incorporate emotional pleas by the prosecution, the defense and even the public (
amicus curiae briefs). Each party is arguing their position to the sentencing judge in hopes that the convicted person's sentence will reflect their opinion. In the case of the prosecution, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have to be followed to ensure a level of uniformity under the law. As Fitzgerald points out repeatedly in his recommendation, Libby was only convicted of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice, and that the sentence calculation of two-and-a-half to three years is the proper sentence. His inclusion of other, non-proven statements is meant to mitigate or counter-balance any defense argument for leniency, but they are not necessarily legal facts. The recommendation was not meant to be a referendum on the war, a point Fitzgerald makes in the document itself.
BTW, I gotta say thanks to all the nutjobs here who have made more out of the sentencing recommendation than is really there. Y'all have made me chuckle more than a few times over the past couple of days. I didn't even have to visit the DailyKOS because y'all kept me in stitches! THANKS!
