# Why did Fitzgerald waste so much time and money on the Plame investigation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 17, 2007, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286 "2007-01-17T02:07:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/1 "2007-01-17T02:07:02Z")
Shouldn’t a guy like Fitzgerald first determine if a crime has been committed and if it has, then look for the perps? Either it was or it wasn’t a crime to reveal Plame’s identity. I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn a couple times, and it seems to me the first thing Fitzy should have done is check out the statutes. There he would have read, “Nope, no crime here. Plame was fair game. Move along, Mr. Fitzgerald, nothing to see. Go back to your day job.” But instead of that he launched a protracted and expensive investigation that nails only Scooter Libby, and for nothing more than perjury, for which if found guilty, he will be pardoned anyway, by you know whom. And somewhere in the course of the probe, Fitzy told the world no crime was committed in the first place. So what was the friggin’ point of it all? I put this question here because I think it should have a factual answer, one that is not open to debate. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/2 "2007-01-17T02:30:43Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] nothing more than perjury [/QUOTE] Perjury can be a very serious crime. A president was once even _impeached_ for perjury; very serious indeed. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/3 "2007-01-17T02:38:46Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Perjury can be a very serious crime. A president was once even _impeached_ for perjury; very serious indeed. [/QUOTE] But that’s my point. Perhaps the perjury would not have been committed if Fitzgerald had done his due diligence and aborted the probe because outing Plame was not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Yeah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/dbc845/32.png) [@Yeah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeah)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/4 "2007-01-17T03:56:30Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] Shouldn’t a guy like Fitzgerald first determine if a crime has been committed and if it has, then look for the perps? Either it was or it wasn’t a crime to reveal Plame’s identity. I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn a couple times, and it seems to me the first thing Fitzy should have done is check out the statutes. There he would have read, “Nope, no crime here. Plame was fair game. Move along, Mr. Fitzgerald, nothing to see. Go back to your day job.” But instead of that he launched a protracted and expensive investigation that nails only Scooter Libby, and for nothing more than perjury, for which if found guilty, he will be pardoned anyway, by you know whom. And somewhere in the course of the probe, Fitzy told the world no crime was committed in the first place. So what was the friggin’ point of it all? [/QUOTE] The whole point of Fitzgerald’s careful investigation was to find out if a crime was committed and if so, by whom. That’s what he did. Unlike you, Fitzgerald is just a simple federal prosecutor so his investigation of a network of tightlipped, politically powerful folks took a lot of time and cost a lot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/5 "2007-01-17T04:11:08Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] outing Plame was not a crime. [/QUOTE] You’re gonna have to do more than simply assert this if you want us to believe it. Valerie Plame’s status as a covert operative whose status was subject to protection from “outing,” as you put it, is [well-documented](http://www.alternet.org/story/31881/), and the CIA itself thought outing her might be a crime. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/6 "2007-01-17T04:28:43Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] But that’s my point. Perhaps the perjury would not have been committed if Fitzgerald had done his due diligence and aborted the probe because outing Plame was not a crime. [/QUOTE] And perhaps Clinton’s perjury would not have been committed if Starr had stuck to his original investigation of Whitewater and not gone on numerous fishing expeditions funded largely by Richard Mellon Scaife. Do you really want to play this game? ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/7 "2007-01-17T04:56:14Z")
So, he reads the statute. Great. Then he compares that to the facts to see if there was a crime. But he doesn’t have any facts. So he has to interview people. And investigate. He can’t skip that step because he read an article in the paper that says what happened. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/8 "2007-01-17T14:41:10Z")
[QUOTE=SmackFu] So, he reads the statute. Great. Then he compares that to the facts to see if there was a crime. But he doesn’t have any facts. So he has to interview people. And investigate. He can’t skip that step because he read an article in the paper that says what happened. [/QUOTE] So, he learns that Richard Armitage is the guy who outed Plame. And what happens? No charges are brought against him. It seems to me that it all boils down to two simple questions: 1. Was Plame a covert CIA Operative? 2. Is there a law on the books that says it’s a crime to out a covert CIA agent? If the answers to 1 and 2 above are Yes and Yes, then why wasn’t Armitage been indicted? If the answers are 1. Yes and 2. No, then Fitzgerald wasted a lot of money and time. Same with 1. No and 2. No, as well as 1. No and 2. Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/9 "2007-01-17T14:44:32Z")
Isn’t her name Palme? ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/10 "2007-01-17T14:51:29Z")
[QUOTE=Nava] Isn’t her name Palme? [/QUOTE] Yes. I was waiting for you to catch me on that. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/11 "2007-01-17T15:43:06Z")
I thought the requirements to make it a crime depended on who it was that leaked the information and what level of access they had? That if CaveMike had guessed her cover and leaked the info, I would be in the clear. But if the head of the CIA leaked the info, it would be a crime. Is that not the case after all? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/12 "2007-01-17T16:49:42Z")
[QUOTE=BarnOwl] So, he learns that Richard Armitage is the guy who outed Plame. And what happens? No charges are brought against him. It seems to me that it all boils down to two simple questions: 1. Was Plame a covert CIA Operative? 2. Is there a law on the books that says it’s a crime to out a covert CIA agent? If the answers to 1 and 2 above are Yes and Yes, then why wasn’t Armitage been indicted? [/QUOTE] The answer to both simple questions is yes. Why hasn’t Armitage been indicted? Fitzgerald hasn’t said, although there are two theories. One is that he concluded that Armitage’s actions didn’t violate the narrow definitions in the Intelligence Identitities Protection Act. The other is that an indictment of Armitage could derail the case against Scooter Libby by providing him an affirmative defense. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/13 "2007-01-17T16:57:51Z")
Getting back to the original question, Fitzgerald was ordered to investigate Plame’s outing to put a respectable face on the beginnings of a nasty scandal. At first, it looked ugly. At first glance, it seemed that Valerie Plame Wilson’s status as a covert CIA agent had been revealed by somebody in the White House as revenge for an newspaper article Valerie’s husband had written. The article seemed to show that president Bush lied about the uranium in the State Of The Union Address. Mr. Bush promised an investigation of the leak, and he said the leaker would be fired. Revealing the identity of a CIA spy is a federal crime, but the law is specific about exactly when it’s illegal. If you destroy an agent’s career under some circumstances, it’s not a crime. As it unfolded, it came out that none of the investigation’s targets were the first to leak the info. So, they didn’t “reveal” it, they “confirmed” an earlier leak. Then Armitage wandered in and said, “Hey, I think I might have been the one.” There is some clump of things that make Armitage innocent of any crime, but I don’t know what they were. Right now, everybody’s in the clear except Irving Lewis Libby, who had been VP Cheney’s chief of staff. Yesterday, jurors were being selected. Very few things that originally seemed obvious were proven to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-fitzgerald-waste-so-much-time-and-money-on-the-plame-investigation/388286/14 "2007-01-17T18:02:23Z")
[QUOTE=Nava] Isn’t her name Palme? [/QUOTE] No, it’s Plame - although she actually goes by her married name, Valerie Wilson. Or did I miss a joke here?