How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Emanuel Clock

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 03-09-2007 06:55 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Sorry but what was the central crime involving Libby and what crime was he convicted of? Lying to a grand jury or something, wasn't it? About what crime? Or was it lying to a grand jury about a non-crime? Has anyone been accused of an actual crime here? Will the real criminal please stand up...or, at least, the real crime?



Read the indictment Mike.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


26 posted 03-09-2007 07:46 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

What lie? Hrm...so many to choose from.  I'll go with the LIE that Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney's office to Niger to investigate the yellow cake story when he was actually sent by the State Department after some string pulling by his spook wife, who just so happened to not qualify for the 'covert' flag at the time of the sending or the years prior or since.  How about another one for a pair: Cheney's office orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy Plame's career when it was WILSON himself who first outted his own wife several years before and then Armitage of the State Department in a Novak interview.  Though it's hard to say with Wilson....his story keeps changing.  There was the version a few years prior to being sent, then another version of who outted his wife after his Op-Ed piece, then yet another version in his book about how his wife got outted, and yet another version during interviews about said book.  It's a good thing for Wilson that he was never brought before a Grand Jury, eh?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 03-09-2007 07:52 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well Cat, either you're the one repeating lies hoping to make them true -- or you're just listening to what you want to hear and are ignoring the source material.

Read the Grand Jury indictment.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


28 posted 03-09-2007 10:00 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Reb, you're getting to be kind of a one trick pony here. "Go read the indictment." Yep, he was indicted for testifying that he couldn't remember who told him something. Something that it turns out was not a criminal disclosure in the first place, which the prosecutor knew all along. It's pretty obvious who the criminals are here.

Whether he was actually guilty of perjury or not is really of little consequence. The other, unpunished, crimes pointed out in this thread are far more significant. The uneven application of the law is what we should all be alarmed about.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


29 posted 03-09-2007 11:28 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Obviously because no one has read the indictment.  If you had read it -- you would know that that is not what it says.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


30 posted 03-10-2007 10:00 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Ok, Reb.

1. e
Several points here.  Cheney asks for info on Iraq-Niger connection.  CIA sends Wilson.  Why they sent Wilson, I have no idea since he lacked the credentials for the job.  The last time he had officially been in Niger was as a General Services Officer between 1976 and 1978.  Yet in 2002, he was hand selected by the Central Intelligence Agency to perform a fact-finding mission in Niger, though he had not worked for the Government since 1998.

The references to Joe Wilson being an 'ambassador' stem from the brief stint he served as one in Gabon and Sao Tamo and Principe (two small island-nations off the coast of Gabon) between 1992 and 1995.  He was never an ambassador to Niger.

See also item 15, in which Wilson reasserts several times that he was sent by the CIA, not the Office of the Vice President.  However, in later interviews he changed tact, citing the Vice President as his employer and never sought to correct those to 'misrepresented' his actual employer.  That should satisfy the first 'lie' I mentioned in an earlier post.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


31 posted 03-10-2007 10:12 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What makes no sense to me (and I have read the Grand Jury indictment) is why the Special Prosecutor went forward with an investigation at all when he knew who the "leaker" was from the beginning. He knew that it was Armitage who 'outed' Valerie Plame, which was no crime anyway, according to what I understand, because the law in question concerned 'covert' operatives, not 'classified' employees and she was 'classified', not 'covert'. Shouldn't that have been the end of the story? So why instigate an investigation when there was no crime to investigate in the first place?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


32 posted 03-10-2007 10:21 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

That's been my thought this entire time, not to mention some of the dismissive sources regarding Berger's behavior...that since there were other copies of the destroyed documents, there was no felony committed.  By the same logic, I should be able to go to a car dealership and steal a car, since obviously there are others on the property and at worst get community service for grand theft auto.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


33 posted 03-10-2007 11:46 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Sure but now we are to accept on plain faith that all of that is just lies? None of this was political and the prosecutor was not just inflating his income, as well as his visibility?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


34 posted 03-10-2007 01:25 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Exactly.  I'm sure the jurors were merely musing aloud when they bemoaned the fact that a scapegoat had been offered up instead of Carl Rove or the Grand Poobah himself, Cheney.

Politically motivated? Naaaah...must've just been yet another right-wing conspiracy.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 03-10-2007 05:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It is obvious why this whole fiasco received so much importance and press coverage. So what's new?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


36 posted 03-10-2007 06:17 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Gotta love the timing though.  The indictment is dated Oct, 31, 2003.  Of special interest is Item 25, in regards to classified documents leaked on or about Sep 26, 2003, but no mention is made of the Wilson articles in the NYT and Washington Post a year prior which clearly leaked 'classified' material.  I mean, if Wilson actually was employed by the CIA under the behest of the VPA about nuclear activity by Iraq...I'm pretty sure that such material would be classified in 2003 even though he was in no way qualified for the position or posting sans string-pulling.

And who would pull strings within the CIA?

HRM....dunno.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 03-10-2007 07:27 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

1999
June: (According to a 2002 conversation between Joseph C. Wilson and former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki) An Iraqi businessman approached Mayaki and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and Niger. Mayaki interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales, but steered the conversation away from trade because of UN sanctions against Iraq.[5] In a 2004 conversation with Wilson, Wilson's "Nigerien source" (presumably, Mayaki), told Wilson that the "Iraqi businessman" he had met in June 1999 was Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the former Iraqi Information Minster, sometimes referred to in the U.S. press as "Baghdad Bob."[6]

[edit] 2001
New Years 2001: Over the holiday, a gang of burglars break into the Nigerian embassy in Rome and steal some letterhead and official stamps.[7]

[edit] Late 2001 - Early 2002
According to CIA Director George Tenet: "There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office."[8]

[edit] February 2002
12 February 2002: Valerie E. Wilson (aka Valerie Plame), a C.I.A. analyst working in its Counterproliferation Division, sends a memo to the deputy chief of the C.I.A.'s Directorate of Operations stating that her husband has good contact with the former Prime Minister and Director of Mines in Niger as well as other contacts who might prove useful in shedding light on the supposed Niger-Iraq uranium contract.[9]
13 February 2002: An operations official cables an overseas officer seeking approval of Joe Wilson investigation.[10]
26 February 2002: Joseph C. Wilson travels to Niger at the request of the CIA. Joe Wilson meets with the former minister of mines, Mai Manga, who said he knew of no sales of uranium between Niger and rogue states. He states the mines are closely monitored from mining to transport loading making it at least very difficult if not impossible for a rogue state to obtain uranium through this channel.[11]
Joe Wilson indicates that in his conversation with former Niger Primer Minister, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, the pm indicated that he was not aware of any sales contract with Iraq but that in June of 1999 he was approached by a businessman, asking that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations. (Note: Niger's two largest exports are uranium and livestock [182]). Wilson indicated he thought the meeting took place but that Mayaki, who was aware of the illegality of such activities, let the matter drop due to the sanctions on Iraq.[12]

According to the report of the U.S. Senate Select Intelligence Committee, (July 2004, pages 43-46), former Nigerien prime minister Mayaki told Wilson in Niger that Mayaki interpreted the June 1999 proposal of a businessman for "expanding commercial relations" as an offer to buy uranium yellowcake. However, this was only an interpretation. The Iraqi did not mention the word "uranium" or "yellowcake."
The Senate report's exact words on Mayaki's suspicions of Iraq's interest in uranium:
Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [A few words blacked out] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq. The [CIA] intelligence report [on Wilson's trip] said that Mayaki interpreted 'expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the U.N. sanctions on Iraq."

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence faulted the C.I.A. for not fully investigating Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger, citing reports from both a foreign service and the United States Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin, a country located between Niger and Togo.

[edit] March 2002
5 March 2002:Wilson is debriefed by two C.I.A. officials at his home. He never files a written report.[13]
Wilson says he reported to the CIA that Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger are unlikely. Any deal about uranium could not possibly have taken place. Nobody at the State Department African Bureau had ever believed in the Niger story. Two other reports supported his views. Some CIA officials told the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Wilson's information was neutral, others said Wilson's information lent support to the contention Iraqi sought uranium from Niger.

[edit] September 2002
9 September 2002: According to Italian newspaper La Repubblica, the head of Italy's military intelligence agency (SISMI), Nicolo Pollari, meets secretly with Stephen Hadley, then Bush's Deputy National Security Adviser; the purpose of the meeting, as reported by La Repubblica, was to bypass a skeptical CIA and get documents purporting to detail an Iraqi attempt to purchase Niger uranium directly to the White House.[14] Hadley and others who attended this meeting say they have little memory of the details of what was discussed, and in a press conference Hadley characterized the meeting as a "courtesy call" that lasted less than 15 minutes.[15] According to the Italian Prime Minister's office, the meeting was between the then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, and Nicolo Pollari, in the presence of an Italian and US delegation that included Stephen Hadley.[16]

[edit] October 2002
6 October 2002: The National Security Council sent a sixth draft of a speech President Bush was to give in Cincinnati to the CIA. The draft contained the statement about Iraq "having been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide.[17] Tenet and other CIA officials directed the text be removed from the speech as the certainty regarding the accuracy of the claim was weak.[citation needed]
7 October 2002: George W. Bush gives a speech in Cincinnati in which he, for the first time, lays out in detail the case for disarming Iraq. In that speech he asserts, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."[18] It is later revealed (in July 2003) that George Tenet had intervened to remove language from that speech referencing Iraq's alleged pursuit of Niger uranium. More specifically, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was reported to be a main target of Tenet's entreaties.[19]
9 October 2002: Elisabetta Burba, an Italian journalist for Panorama magazine, part of the media empire of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, contacts the U.S. Embassy in Rome, requesting authentication of some documents of interest that she has. These documents allegedly represent a contract by Iraq to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from Niger. The owner, not Elisabetta Burba, reportedly wants 15,000 euros for them. Panorama refuses to pay that amount unless they are first verified as authentic.[20]
15 October 2002: The embassy in Rome faxes the documents to the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation in Washington which in turn provided copies to the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The INR's nuclear analyst will later decide they are a hoax in January 2003.
During an inter-agency meeting the next day, analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Security Agency, and the CIA all obtain copies of the documents. None of the four CIA analysts in attendance remembers taking a copy which later would show up in a CIA vault during a postmortem search.[21]

[edit] December 2002
19 December 2002: By this date the uranium claim, which George Tenet had removed from Bush's speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October 2002, had found its way back into a State Department "fact sheet." Following that, the Pentagon requests an authoritative judgement from the National Intelligence Council as to whether or not Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.[22]

[edit] January 2003
January 2003: The National Intelligence Council, responding to the Pentagon's request, drafts a memo addressing the Niger uranium story in which they conclude the story is baseless. The memo arrives at the White House prior to the State of the Union address given later that month.[23]
6 January 2003: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asks the United States for any information related to the claim that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger.[24]
13 January 2003: The INR's nuclear analyst sends email to colleagues providing rationale on why the Yellowcake document is a hoax. The CIA's nuclear analyst does not have the documents in question and requests a copy.[25]
16 January 2003: CIA received copies of the original foreign language documents on the Niger-Iraq contract.[26]
27 January 2003: During a National Security Council meeting at the White House, someone hands George Tenet a hardcopy of President Bush's State of the Union address. Tenet is too busy to read it and hands it to an aide who passes it to a top official in the CIA intelligence directorate who was also too busy to read it.[27]
28 January 2003: President George W. Bush gives his State of the Union speech. Toward the end Bush states, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[28] The sentence becomes known as the "16 words." In his State of the Union speech, Bush also declares, "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."

[edit] February 2003
4 February 2003: The United States provides electronic copy of the Niger documents to Jacques Bute, then head of IAEA's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, who was in New York, and sends a copy to the IAEA offices in Vienna as well.[29]

[edit] March 2003
3 March 2003: The IAEA tells the U.S. Mission in Vienna the Niger documents were obvious fakes.[30] Among errors reportedly identified in the documents is a reference to a Nigerian constitution in 1965.[citation needed]

[edit] June 2003
12 June 2003: During a telephone call, Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife worked in Counter Proliferation.[31]

[edit] July 2003
6 July 2003: Joe Wilson's Opinion Editorial "What I Didn't Find in Africa" is published in The New York Times.[32]

7 July 2003: Colin Powell receives a copy of a 10 June memo naming Valerie Wilson as Joe Wilson's wife and as a CIA officer, taking it with him on a trip on Air Force One with President Bush. The paragraph identifying Mrs. Wilson is marked "(S-NF)," signfying its information is classified "Secret, Noforn."[33] Noforn is a code word indicating that the information is not to be shared with foreign nationals.[34] Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Ari Fleischer, Walter H. Kansteiner, III, and Andrew Card are on the trip, among others.
Sometime before 8 July 2003 Robert Novak has a conversation with Richard Armitage (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State). In that conversation he is told for the first time that Wilson's wife works for the C.I.A. [Armitage didn't tell Novak her name; subsequently, after his August 2006 public disclosure that he was the "inadvertent" leak, Armitage has asserted that he did not know her name at the time.] Novak uses an edition of Joseph C. Wilson's biography in Who's Who to identify by her maiden name Valerie Plame. According to the reporters Isikoff and Corn, Armitage's leak was "inadvertent, and the Intelligence Identities Act hadn't been violated."[35]

8 July 2003: Robert Novak has a phone conversation with Karl Rove in which C.I.A. agent Plame is discussed, according to an unnamed source who had been told not to talk about the case. Novak is reported to have told Rove the name of the agent as "Valerie Plame" and her role in Wilson's mission to Africa. Rove is reported to have told Novak something to the effect of, "I heard that, too." or "Oh, so you already know about it." Rove reportedly told the grand jury that at this time he had already heard about Wilson's wife working for the CIA from another journalist, but is unable to remember who that was.[36]
8 July 2003: Lewis Libby meets with Judith Miller and tells her about Plame's work at the CIA. According to Libby's later grand jury testimony, he told Miller at this meeting that the Niger uranium claim had been a "key judgement" of the October 2002 NIE (still classified at that time), and that Cheney had instructed him to do so. This was false; the Niger claim was not in fact one of the "key judgements" headlined, bolded, and bulleted in the first pages of the intelligence estimate.[37] Later, after testifying to a Federal grand jury in October 2005, Miller will write in the New York Times that on this date (and four days later, on 12 July 2003), Libby "played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance."[citation needed]
circa 10 July 2003-11 July 2003: Novak called Bill Harlow, then CIA spokesman, to confirm information regarding Plame and Wilson. According to Novak, Harlow denied that Plame "suggested" that Wilson be selected for the trip, and Harlow stated instead that CIA "counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."[38] According to Harlow, he "warned Novak in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information," that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if Novak did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. According to Harlow, however, he did not tell Novak directly that Plame was undercover because that information was classified.[39] According to Novak, not only did Harlow not tell Novak that Plame was undercover, he actually told Novak that "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" Novak states that if he had been told that disclosure of Plame's name would endanger her or anyone else, he would not have disclosed the name.[40]

11 July 2003: According to one source, Novak's regular syndicated column was allegedly distributed by Creators Syndicate on the newswire AP on this date.[41]

11 July 2003: Matt Cooper's internal Time e-mail message bearing the time 11:07 a.m. is sent to his bureau chief, stating: "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation. . . ." Cooper writes that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." According to Cooper, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCI"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip." Rove also told Cooper that, "there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger".[42] Cooper would later tell the investigating grand jury that Rove concluded the conversation by saying "I've already said too much."[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline



quote:

(1) The term “classified information” means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act



quote:

Much of the media attention has focused on whether one or more senior officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421-426). (See Intelligence Identities Protection Act for the full text of this act.) However, proving a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act involves several elements which may be difficult to establish in this case. Some legal pundits felt that Rove was unlikely to have been in violation of the narrowly-worded Intelligence Identities Protection Act &mdash.

In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." A covert agent is one who is "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States" (§ 426[4][a][ii]).[4] Whereas, prior to July 14, 2003, when Novak's column outing her as a "CIA operative" was published, Plame had not been posted or stationed overseas in the preceding five years, during that period, she had '"served" overseas.

Further information: Valerie Plame#Career
In his book The Politics of Truth, Joseph C. Wilson states that he and Valerie Plame, then his future wife, both returned from their respective overseas assignments in June 1997, and that, after June 1997, neither he nor Plame was stationed overseas. But this information still allows the possibility that Mrs. Wilson served overseas after June 1997, which she did when she traveled on behalf of the CIA to investigate matters relating to weapons of mass destruction. After the publication of Novak's column, neither Wilson nor his wife has commented on any details pertaining to her CIA service, but Wilson responded to a reporter's question that "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.[5] That action implies that she may have traveled overseas undercover.

On July 14, 2005, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, broadcast on CNN, Wilson stated:

“ My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.[6]


When Blitzer asked, "But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?", Wilson responded:

“ That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.


Wilson later claimed to the Associated Press what he had meant was something different than the way the comment was later covered in the press:

“ In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand. His wife's 'ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,' he said.[7]


In December 2004, over a year after Novak blew her cover, pictures of Joe Wilson and his wife appeared in Vanity Fair.

Further information: Joseph C. Wilson
Further information: Valerie Plame
Many former CIA agents and other former government officials argue that regardless of whether she went overseas in the required time period, her "outing" as an intelligence official did harm national security by compromising her front company and every other CIA employee using that front.[citations needed] Moreover, the disclosure sends a message to potential CIA agents and assets around the globe that the CIA could not guarantee that their identity would be protected if they chose to work undercover for the Agency or in cooperation with it.[citations needed]

In order for one to be protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it must be a fact that the U.S. government "is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States."[citation needed] In debating this issue, some spokespeople for the Republican Party argue that if Plame worked at CIA's headquarters it could show that the CIA was not taking the required "affirmative measures."[citations needed] Yet, in their letter presented to the U.S. Senate investigating the Plame affair, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson, joined by ten other former CIA and DIA officers and analysts, strongly disagree:

“ These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who 'work at a desk' in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected."[8]


From their perspective, the fact that Plame worked for a CIA front corporation created and maintained at taxpayer's expense constitutes an affirmative measure to conceal her covert employment.

Johnson argues further that the debate over the legality of the leak functions as a red herring, distracting the public from the direct harms to national security caused by the leak:

“ What is so despicable about all of this is that the conservative movement is now serving as apologists for political operatives who have destroyed an intelligence network and at least one case officer's distinguished career. The new standard for the Republican National Committee--Karl Rove didn't commit a crime. Boy, there's a slogan to run on, "At Least I Wasn't Indicted."[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_legal_questions



quote:

There are some major legal issues surrounding the allegations of illegality by administration officials in the Plame affair, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, Title 18 Section 641, conspiracy to impede or injure officers, the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, other laws and precedents, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and compelling the media to testify.

Possible consequences of the public disclosure of Plame's CIA identity
There has been debate over what kinds of damage may have resulted from the public disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative in Novak's column and its fallout, how far and into what areas of national security and foreign intelligence that damage might extend, particularly vis-à-vis Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, and also how the Plame affair and Plamegate may have affected the power, privileges, and functioning of the press media in America.

On October 3, 2004 The Washington Post quotes a former diplomat predicting immediate damage:

“ . . . [E]very foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. . . . That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name.[100]


In contrast, in an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented:

“ They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone, and there was just some embarrassment.[101]


In an appearance the next night, October 28, 2005, on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell was quoted as saying:

“ I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance.[102]


Following Mitchell's appearance on Hardball, on October 29, 2006, The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer reported that no formal damage assessment had yet been conducted by the CIA "as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer writes:

“ There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences –– the risk of anyone's life –– resulted from her outing. But after Plame's name appeared in Robert D. Novak's column, the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.[103]


Mark Lowenthal, who retired from a senior management position at the CIA in March 2005 reportedly told Linzer:

“ You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put them at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources.


Another intelligence official who spoke anonymously to Linzer cited the CIA's interest in protecting the agency and its work:

“ You'll never get a straight answer [from the Agency] about how valuable she was or how valuable her sources were.[103]


In August 2005, Newsweek journalist Michael Isikoff reported that a "former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved" told him that the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.[104]

On October 28, 2005, the Office of Special Counsel issued a press release regarding Libby's indictment. The following is stated regarding Plame:

“ Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.[105]


In a November 3, 2005 online live discussion, in response to a question about the Fitzgerald investigation, The Washington Post's Dana Priest, a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist specializing in matters of national security, opined:

“ I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position."[106]


In a January 9, 2006 letter addressed to "Scooter" Libby's defense team, Patrick Fitzgerald responded to a discovery request by Libby's lawyers for both classified and unclassified documents. In the letter, Fitzgerald writes:

“ A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document. (Italics added).


He continues:

“ In any event, we would not view an assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony which the grand jury alleged was false.[107]


During Libby's trial, Judge Reggie Walton told the jury "No evidence will be presented to you with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson’s status. That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them." During court proceedings, when the jury wasn't present, Walton told the court "I don’t know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was...It’s totally irrelevant to this case...I to this day don’t know what her actual status was."[108]

Larisa Alexandrovna of The Raw Story reports that three intelligence officials, who spoke under condition of anonymity, told her that

“ While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation. ”

According to her sources,

“ the damage assessment . . . called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. . . . [and showed] "significant damage to operational equities."


Alexandrovna also reports that while Plame was undercover she was involved in an operation identifying and tracking weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, suggesting that her outing "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation." Her sources also stated that the outing of Plame also compromised the identity of other covert operatives who had been working, like Plame, under non-official cover status. These anonymous officials said that in their judgement, the CIA's work on WMDs has been set back "ten years" as a result of the compromise.[109]

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported on Hardball later, on May 1, 2006, that MSNBC had learned "new information" about the potential consequences of the leaks:

“ Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the Administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. The White House considers Iran to be one of America's biggest threats.[110]


On September 6, 2006, David Corn published an article for The Nation entitled "What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA" in which Corn reports that Plame was placed in charge of the operations group within the Joint Task Force on Iraq in the spring of 2001 and that, "when the Novak column ran," in July 2003:

“ Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator--to rise up a notch or two--and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown, she could never be undercover again.[111]


According to Vanity Fair:

“ In fact, in the spring [of 2003], Plame was in the process of moving from NOC status to State Department cover. [Joe] Wilson speculates that "if more people knew than should have, then somebody over at the White House talked earlier than they should have been talking."[112]


In July 2006, according to CNN, Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson

“ filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq" and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked at the CIA. This revelation destroyed Plame's career with the agency, according to the suit.


The scenario described by the sources familiar with Armitage's role, however, appears to contradict those arguments.
But the Wilsons' attorney, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the revelation that Armitage was the original source for the leak did not undercut the charge that Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and White House adviser Karl Rove acted to retaliate against Wilson by engaging in a "whispering campaign" about his wife.
The couple plans to proceed with the lawsuit, Sloan said.


"Mr. Armitage's conduct does not change the facts of what Libby, Cheney and Rove did," Sloan told CNN. "The case is about the abuse of government power."[113] ”

On September 13, 2006, Joseph and Valerie Wilson amended their original lawsuit, adding Armitage as a fourth defendant.[114] Unlike their charges against Rove, Cheney, and Libby, "claiming that they had violated her constitutional rights and discredited her by disclosing that she was an undercover CIA operative," the Wilsons are suing Armitage "for violating the 'Wilsons' constitutional right to privacy, Mrs. Wilson's constitutional right to property, and for committing the tort of publication of private facts.'"[115]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Legal_issues_relating_to_the_Plame_affair



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


38 posted 03-10-2007 07:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

[edit] Alleging wider knowledge of Plame's CIA job
On November 4, 2005 Fox News analyst and retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely claimed that Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson had spoken to him about his wife's role with the CIA while they were waiting together in the green room before appearing on FOX News. He initially said this occurred on three to five occasions, first in February or March of 2002, more than a year before Novak's column was published. Vallely also said Wilson was proud to routinely introduce his wife as a CIA employee at cocktail parties. [9]

Wilson has since demanded that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them "patently false." Wilson wrote to his attorney, as quoted in electronic correspondence included in his demand for a retraction posted on the blog World Net Daily:

“ This is slanderous. I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie.... I never laid eyes on [Vallely] till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife.[10]


Indeed, Wilson and Vallely could have been together in the green room at most four times beginning in August, 2002.[11] But a compendium of the times that Wilson and Vallely appeared on Fox News has revealed that there is only one possible date, September 12, 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other.[12]

In response, Brit Hume, managing editor of Fox News, reported:

“ Liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day. But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12, when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another.[13]


Hume's unit of measure "on the same day" differs from the comparison's unit of measure "within hours," according to Jeralyn Merritt, who went through the FOX transcripts to compile this information; she notes that on September 12:

“ Wilson's segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely's began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn't have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson's wife's employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries."[14]


On November 7, 2005, Vallely appeared on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show; on this occasion he stated that Wilson had disclosed Plame's employment while in the green room only once, but could not remember the precise date:

“ . . . we got to talk about our families, past assignments, and so on and so forth. And only on one occasion do I recall, you know, "My wife's at the agency."


. . . .
. . . it was 2002, and ––
. . . .


Probably was in that summer, early fall timeframe that it happened. ”

On November 8, WorldNetDaily posted that

“ Since speaking with WND late Friday, Vallely has clarified the number of occasions Wilson mentioned his wife's status and when the conversation occurred. After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion.[15]


Media Matters for America notes:

“ Vallely's allegations have come nearly two years after the beginning of Fitzgerald's high-profile investigation. Despite widespread reporting about the seriousness of Fitzgerald's investigation, Vallely apparently did not feel compelled to share his story until more than a week after Libby's indictment. In an interview on the November 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes asked Vallely: "Did you talk to the FBI, or do you plan to talk to the FBI?" Vallely responded, "Well, no, I haven't talked to them."[16]


On The Sean Hannity Show of November 7, Vallely stated further: "I was asked, 'Why didn't you say this before?' Well, I figured Joe Wilson would self-destruct at some point in time."[citation needed]

According to ABC Radio Networks' John Batchelor on November 6, touting McInerney's scheduled appearance on Batchelor's show the next day, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who has coauthored with Vallely a book about the war on terrorism, alleged that Wilson had also told him about his wife's job with the CIA while in the green room at FOX News studios:

“ Lt. General Tom McInerney, USAF (ret), West Point '59, will join his colleague Maj. General Paul Vallely, USA (ret), West Point '61, on my show Monday 7 November . . . to repeat and expand upon Vallely's memory that Joe Wilson more than once in 2002 in the green room at Fox New [sic] Channel in Washington D.C. boasted about his wife the "CIA desk officer." McInerney has the same memory and more, since both he and Vallely were on FNC between 150 and 200 times in 2002 each.[17]


But when McInerney actually appeared on the November 7 show, he did not mention any direct "memories" of any similar incident and limited his comments to very general support of Vallely:

“ But to your knowledge, Paul Vallely has revealed nothing but the truth. Is that correct, General?

Absolutely.[18]


Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson questions the credibility of these retired generals:

“ I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up. . . . What is so pathetic is that both Vallely and McInerney present themselves as military experts on special operations when neither has held any position of any importance with those forces. In fact, neither has ever held compartmented clearances required to know about those special programs. Given their track record of getting military facts wrong there is no doubt they are wrong about Joe Wilson.[19]


Batchelor also suggested on November 6 that Hoover Institution senior fellow and National Review contributor Victor Davis Hanson had also reported being similarly informed of Plame's employment by Wilson:

“ Also, I have written my regular correspondent Victor Davis Hanson to ask after his reported memories of Wilson boasting to him in a green room meeting that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.[20].


On November 8 WorldNetDaily stated:

“ . . . contrary to a report, Hanson said Wilson did not disclose his wife's CIA employment.


Instead Hanson merely described Wilson as very "indiscreet" and "unguarded" with personal information, rambling in a "stream of consciousness" manner.[21] These claims have been disputed by Wilson and his lawyer.

See also: Joseph C. Wilson#Wilson's_response_to_the_claims
Fitzgerald concludes his indictment against Libby:

“ Prior to July 14 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.


Libby's defense team has countered in court hearings that they have five witnesses from outside the intelligence community who will testify that Wilson told them before the Novak article was published that his wife worked at the CIA.[22] Libby's legal team rested their case on February 14, 2007. There was no testimony from any witness that Wilson disclosed his wife's status prior to the Novak article.

According to a June 2006 ruling by United States District Judge Reggie Walton, Libby's defense team also sought "any notes from the September 2003 meeting in the Situation Room at which Colin Powell is reported to have said that (a) everyone knows that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that (b) it was Mr. Wilson’s wife who suggested that the CIA send her husband on a mission to Niger."

Walton ruled against Libby regarding this request.[23]
Questioning the covert nature of Plame's CIA status
There are various disputes concerning the covert nature of Plame's status with the CIA. This issue is complicated somewhat by a variety of definitions of covert. While it appears to be clear that Plame's employment status was formally classified by the CIA as "secret" and not for disclosure to foreign nationals, and that her employment was therefore "undercover," and/or "classified," and that she had been classified as a NOC, or non-official cover agent of the CIA, various commentators have argued that on July 14, 2003, when Novak's column appeared, Plame did not fit the legal definition of "covert" as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.[citations needed]

The USA Today stated on July 14, 2005 that Mrs. Plame hadn't been outside the United States as a NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins.[citation needed] The following day, in an article published in the Washington Times, Stephen Dinan and Joseph Curl cite Fred Rustmann, a former CIA covert agent who claimed that he supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career, took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," and said that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee: "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat."[24]

Joe Wilson, Plame's husband, in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer, broadcast on CNN on July 14, 2005, stated: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."[25] This comment has been misinterpreted, but Wilson later explained his meaning to Associated Press, which issued a retraction: "In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand. His wife's 'ability to do the job she's been doing for close to 20 years ceased from the minute Novak's article appeared; she ceased being a clandestine officer,' he said."[26]

Reflecting some of the press commentaries cited above, conservative columnist Max Boot has called Joseph Wilson a "liar," also claiming that Plame's status was not "covert" at the time of her outing in the Novak column because she had been working in Virginia for more than five years.[27]

Although he left the CIA in 1993, Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[28]

Plame worked for the CIA for 20 years, and her status, according to the New York Times, was "non-official cover." (5 October 2003). U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Plame was working undercover shortly after it had been revealed by Robert Novak.[29] Senator Charles Schumer asked the FBI to investigate the leak because the CIA had identified Plame's status as covert.[30] John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune interviewed several unnamed former and current CIA employees who doubt that Plame had NOC status in the CIA at the time her cover was blown by Novak.[31]

A variety of arguments regarding Ms. Plame's status as "covert" have arisen as a result of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation. In the Grand Jury indictment of Libby and his press conference on the Libby indictment, broadcast on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald would not state explicitly whether or not Plame was "covert."[32].

Nevertheless, in a 5 February 2005 concurring opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel made two references to Plame's covert status: (1) on page 28 of the opinion, Judge Tatel refers to Plame as an "alleged covert agent"; (2) on page 38, Judge Tatel states that because Fitzgerald had allegedly referred to Plame as a CIA agent "who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years," in footnote 15 of a recent affidavit, Judge Tatel inferred that Mr. Fitzgerald must have at least "some support" for that conclusion.[33] Judge Tatel appears to have inferred from Special Counsel Fitzgerald's affidavit, which says that he is investigating whether or not Libby could have "intentionally" and "willfully" exposed the identity of "a covert agent" (italics added),[34] that Fitzgerald had already concluded that Plame was an agent who had carried out covert work within the last five years.[35][36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_theories_regarding_the_Plame_affair


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


39 posted 03-10-2007 07:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

[edit] Selected press commentary and Wilson's responses
Susan Schmidt opens her article on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report in the Washington Post by stating that it challenges some of the statements made by Wilson and suggests that Wilson's wife was more involved in his selection for the mission than Wilson has repeatedly asserted:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."[37]

This introduction does not, however, take into account wide differences of interpretation relating to Wilson's comments on the matter both in print and in media interviews that she reports throughout the body of her article. Schmidt highlights the following:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, according to the report, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson.[37]

But high-ranking CIA officials told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that they disputed the claim that Plame was involved in the final decision to send Wilson and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. As reported by Knut Royce and Tim Phelps in Newsday on 22 July 2003:

A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can’t figure out what it could be." "We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there," the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses.[38]

Wilson states in "Sixteen Words," the first chapter of The Politics of Truth:

Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the possibility of my actually traveling to the country was broached. She definitely had not proposed that I make this trip. (5)[39]

Schmidt renders the quotation from Wilson in a misleading way, however, omitting any sign of her editorial ellipsis:

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year [The Politics of Truth (2004)]. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday [July 9, 2003], saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo [of Feb. 12, 2002 sent to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the (Nigerian) PM (prime minister) and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity"], he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."[37]

Wilson's responses to this article, published in The Politics of Truth, point out significant errors of fact and interpretation in Susan Schmidt's account of the Committee's report:

Her article was replete with factual errors that could have been avoided had she bothered to read the text of the report or even done some basic research, such as looking up the CIA statement made the previous year in the Newsday article about Valerie's lack of involvement in the trip. But she did not. Indeed, her reporting was so sloppy that from the lead sentence she conflated what the three Republican senators––and not even a majority of their own party's representation on the committee––asserted with what the actual report concluded. She even confused Iraq with Iran, a significant error of fact. She also quoted a phrase from this book that Valerie "had nothing to do with the matter" without the qualifying phrase in the beginning of the sentence: "other than serve as a conduit." Schmidt asserted that my report, rather than debunking intelligence about the purported uranium sales to Iraq, had bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. She went further, noting that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

Both of these assertions were patently false, and even a cursory reading of the body of the report dedicated to the Niger case would have borne that out. (lix)

Wilson's reply particularly to Senators Roberts, Bond, and Hatch was published online as "Joseph Wilson's Letter to the Senate": "The Former Ambassador Responds to Allegations by Republican Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report Challenging His Credibility" on AlterNet on July 19, 2004.[40]

In a "statement [submitted] to the Congress," former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson further refutes the "allegation" cited most often in the media:

Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division. The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.[41]

Accounts of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection appear to differ markedly, but the main difference may be semantic. Wilson claims that his wife simply contacted him on the agency's behalf at its behest, responded to her supervisor's request for information, and escorted her husband to the meeting before leaving it, prior to any decision being made; whereas some press accounts whose reliability does appear at times indeed questionable claim that Plame may also have "recommended" her husband by virtue of her writing a summary of his qualifications when he was already being considered. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [ Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip" (italics added).[42] Nevertheless, as Schmidt clearly states, "Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger," and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report in no way contradicts or even counters that assertion (italics added).

Schmidt states in her July 10, 2003 article in the Washington Post: that the Senate Intelligence Committee Report points to inconsistencies in Wilson's retrospective accounts of his trip to Niger (which Wilson disputes):

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.[37]

Nevertheless, Schmidt concludes:

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson#Selected_press_commentary_and_Wilson.27s_responses

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 03-10-2007 07:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for such a detailed account, Reb

The crime was what again?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


41 posted 03-10-2007 08:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, Title 18 Section 641, conspiracy to impede or injure officers, the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, other laws and precedents, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice,

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001502-2.html#37
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


42 posted 03-10-2007 08:19 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the possible unauthorized disclosure of a CIA officer’s classified identity. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself and named Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case. Comey in turn named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald to the case on December 30, 2003.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation



quote:

An editorial in the Washington Post reads:

The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent -- and mostly erroneous -- allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest. . . . That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source. Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement.[55]

John W. Dean, the former counsel to Richard Nixon, writes in an open letter to Patrick Fitzgerald:

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004 you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information."

Troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.

Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office.

The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters - and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.

That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.[56] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair_criminal_investigation#Libby_Indictment

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 03-10-2007 08:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Espionage Act
There is precedent for prosecuting a leak under the Espionage Act. In United States v. Morison, Samuel Loring Morison was convicted of espionage for leaking classified surveillance photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane's Defense Weekly. The court specifically found that there is no need under this law to show any "evil purpose." Morison unsuccessfully argued that he was trying to help the media avoid incorrect reporting on an alleged Soviet military buildup.[12]

In 2003, Sandy Berger, former Clinton administration National Security Advisor, removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.[citations needed] Even though no classified information leaked as a result, he pled guilty to violating the Espionage Act in mishandling the documents and his security clearance was suspended for 3 years.[citations needed]

Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USC 794 states:

“ Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.[13]


On October 28, 2005, Lewis Libby resigned from his position in the White House. This followed immediately after he was indicted on five criminal felony charges including obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indicated that he considered the charges grave, as they represented a fundamental attack on the legal system. Also mentioned in the indictment, but not charged was "Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793," which is the Espionage Act.[14][15]

In his news conference on the indictiment of Lewis Libby, Fitzgerald further emphasized the presumption of Libby's innocence pending his (January 2007) court trial and explained the parameters of the Grand Jury investigation into the leak:

“ FITZGERALD: I will say this: Mr. Libby is presumed innocent. He would not be guilty unless and until a jury of 12 people came back and returned a verdict saying so.
But if what we allege in the indictment is true, then what is charged is a very, very serious crime that will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here.

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, do you have evidence that the vice president of the United States, one of Mr. Libby's original sources for this information, encouraged him to leak it or encouraged him to lie about leaking?

FITZGERALD: I'm not making allegations about anyone not charged in the indictment.

Now, let me back up, because I know what that sounds like to people if they're sitting at home.

We don't talk about people that are not charged with a crime in the indictment.

FITZGERALD: I would say that about anyone in this room who has nothing to do with the offenses.

We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.

But as to any person you asked me a question about other than Mr. Libby, I'm not going to comment on anything.

Please don't take that as any indication that someone has done something wrong. That's a standard practice. If you followed me in Chicago, I say that a thousand times a year. And we just don't comment on people because we could start telling, "Well, this person did nothing wrong, this person did nothing wrong," and then if we stop commenting, then you'll start jumping to conclusions. So please take no more.

QUESTION: For all the sand thrown in your eyes, it sounds like you do know the identity of the leaker. There's a reference to a senior official at the White House, Official A [later (in Sept. 2006) revealed publicly as Richard Armitage, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State] who had a discussion with Robert Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

QUESTION: Can you explain why that official was not charged?

FITZGERALD: I'll explain this: I know that people want to know whatever it is that we know, and they're probably sitting at home with the TV thinking, "[I want] to jump through the TV, grab him by his collar and tell him to tell us everything they figured out over the last two years."

We just can't do that. It's not because we enjoy holding back information from you; that's the law.

And one of the things we do with a grand jury is we gather information. And the explicit requirement is if we're not going to charge someone with a crime; if we decide that a person did not commit a crime, we cannot prove a crime, doesn't merit prosecution, we do not stand up and say, "We gathered all this information on the commitment that we're going to follow the rules of grand jury secrecy, which say we don't talk about people not charged with a crime, and then at the end say, well, it's a little inconvenient not to give answers out, so I'll give it out anyway."

FITZGERALD: I can't give you answers on what we know and don't know, other than what's charged in the indictment.

It's not because I enjoy being in that position. It's because the law is that way. I actually think the law should be that way.
We can't talk about information not contained in the four corners of the indictment. (Italics added)[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_legal_questions



quote:

Fitzgerald was named by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey on December 30, 2003 to conduct the investigation into the Plame affair after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case due to conflicts of interest.[11] Fitzgerald was granted the full plenary power of the Attorney General in the Libby case, as clarified by Comey in letters of February 6, 2004, and August 12, 2005.[12][13]

Verdict
The jury rendered its verdict at noon on March 6, 2007.[42] It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him—two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators—and acquitted him on one count of making false statements.[43] Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the convictions could result in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of one million US dollars.[2] Given those non-binding guidelines, according to lawyer, author, New Yorker staff writer, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Anderson Cooper 360°, such a sentence could likely be between "one and a half to three years."[44] Sentencing is scheduled to occur in June 2007.[43][45] News media reported that his lawyers have announced their intention to appeal Libby's conviction.[2][4]


[edit] Comment on the verdict by a juror
As reported in CNN Newsroom, and subsequently on Larry King Live on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on Scarborough Country), one juror––"Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat," who is a former reporter for The Washington Post and author of a book on espionage––"said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe.... 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'"[2][46][47][48] Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.[49]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby#Verdict



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


44 posted 03-10-2007 09:08 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

The uneven application of the law is what we should all be alarmed about.



No worries Pete.  I doubt seriously we're going to start throwing all the poor black Democrats in prison on the street to make room for rich white Republicans.

quote:

What makes no sense to me (and I have read the Grand Jury indictment) is why the Special Prosecutor went forward with an investigation at all when he knew who the "leaker" was from the beginning. He knew that it was Armitage who 'outed' Valerie Plame, which was no crime anyway, according to what I understand, because the law in question concerned 'covert' operatives, not 'classified' employees and she was 'classified', not 'covert'. Shouldn't that have been the end of the story? So why instigate an investigation when there was no crime to investigate in the first place?



Because, there was more than just one crime being investigated here -- and, as with any crime -- investigations don't stop at just the guy on the street who buys the meth -- but to seek out and destroy the meth lab and bring it's perpetrators to justice.

quote:

That's been my thought this entire time, not to mention some of the dismissive sources regarding Berger's behavior...that since there were other copies of the destroyed documents, there was no felony committed.  By the same logic, I should be able to go to a car dealership and steal a car, since obviously there are others on the property and at worst get community service for grand theft auto.



When you can hit print on your computer Cat and print out a picture of a Porsche and drive that to work -- then your comparison will be accurate.

quote:

Sure but now we are to accept on plain faith that all of that is just lies? None of this was political and the prosecutor was not just inflating his income, as well as his visibility?



Politics is inevitibly involved wherever Politicians and Power is concerned. The CIA called for the investigation -- that's not political.  What would politics of this investigation and prosecution been if not for Ashcroft's recusal, due ostensibly to the large sums of money that Rove had contributed to his past campaigns?  

As a Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was still empowered by the JD -- still working for the big guy -- so -- if there are politics in question -- John Dean's concerns bear considerable weight.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


45 posted 03-10-2007 09:22 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Yet I've never heard you outspoken about the myriad CIA leaks to the mass media.  Regardless, the 'spokesman' for the jury sums it up nicely.  They didn't think Libby was guilty but convicted him anyhow.  How marvelous.

I was a juror a few months ago in a drunk driving case, and am allowed to discuss.  Didn't like the defendant, thought he was guilty of public intoxication and drunk driving, but the proof and evidence offered was insufficient to proove he was guilty of the crimes listed.  It boils down to proof the jurors are allowed to see/hear.  Did you know Russert was not allowed to be cross-examined?  Reason given is the presiding judge was very upset that Libby was supposed to take the stand, but didn't.  And for some reason, you seem quite content to leave off the murmuring of the jury in this particular case lamenting Rove or Cheney not being the defendant.  And yet you give forth the premise that this entire judicial farce was apolitical.  Astounding.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


46 posted 03-10-2007 11:38 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

well, everyone, of course, is still allowed to have his own opinion, regardless of how baseless it might be. As long as it is only an opinion, it really is pretty insignificant and useless to anyone not of "like mind." Yes it's just too easy to find "an example" and proclaim that as "proving the corruption of the system," whatever that might be. It takes more "open eyes" to survey the overall situation, again, whatever that might be.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


47 posted 03-11-2007 11:24 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sure Pete -- you're absolutely free to join OJ in his search for the real killers if you want.    

quote:

Regardless, the 'spokesman' for the jury sums it up nicely.  They didn't think Libby was guilty but convicted him anyhow.  How marvelous.

And for some reason, you seem quite content to leave off the murmuring of the jury in this particular case lamenting Rove or Cheney not being the defendant.  And yet you give forth the premise that this entire judicial farce was apolitical.  Astounding.



Wrong on both counts Cat.  Here's what I posted;

quote:

Comment on the verdict by a juror
As reported in CNN Newsroom, and subsequently on Larry King Live on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on Scarborough Country), one juror––"Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat," who is a former reporter for The Washington Post and author of a book on espionage––"said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe.... 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'"[2][46][47][48] Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.[49]
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001502-2.html#43



The jury didn't think Libby wasn't guilty -- they said they think he's the fall guy -- and they, like you and Denise and Pete, are confused about why the core crimes in this case weren't being prosecuted -- and would like to see it done.

quote:

I was a juror a few months ago in a drunk driving case, and am allowed to discuss.  Didn't like the defendant, thought he was guilty of public intoxication and drunk driving, but the proof and evidence offered was insufficient to proove he was guilty of the crimes listed.  It boils down to proof the jurors are allowed to see/hear.



Bingo!  Here's the very poorly written Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

quote:

421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
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.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and 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 five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act



Which would call for proof in this case about what a defendent 'believed'.  A very difficult task.  Because Armitage's disclosure doesn't appear to be 'intentional' it wouldn't necessarilly qualify under the technical description of violation of this particular code.  Although Rove's, Libby's, and Fliescher's role appears to be the 'pattern' mentioned in (c) -- there it could be argued that they didn't disclose the information to impede the intelligence gathering capabilities of the U.S. --but for the political purpose of smearing a person who posed a threat to them.

Fitzgerald proceded with what he could -- Obstruction, Perjury, making false statements, but he wrote the indictment, and the Grand Jury signed off in it -- so that we could see what was really going on.

quote:

And yet you give forth the premise that this entire judicial farce was apolitical.  Astounding.



quote:

By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

/s/ James B. Comey

James B. Comey


Acting Attorney General http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_of_Deputy_Attorney_General_a   ppointing_Patrick_Fitzgerald_Special_Counsel



So then you're saying that Ashcroft, and his deputy, Comey -- both appointees of Bush -- were intent on bringing down the Bush Presidency?  That is astounding.

But on the contrary -- Comey very narrowly focused Fitzgerald's powers to investigate only the disclosure of Plame's identity -- he was in a box. As a man of integrity -- he kept the sand in the box -- but he wrote a message to us in that sand.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


48 posted 03-11-2007 11:57 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention this prevarication:

quote:

Did you know Russert was not allowed to be cross-examined?  Reason given is the presiding judge was very upset that Libby was supposed to take the stand, but didn't.



I don't know where you get these lies from Cat.

quote:

Given that news climate, defense attorney Theodore Wells was skeptical about Russert's account.

"You have the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States on the telephone, and you don't ask him one question about it?" Wells asked. He followed up moments later with, "As a newsperson who's known for being aggressive and going after the facts, you wouldn't have asked him about the biggest stories in the world that week?"

"What happened is exactly what I told you," Russert replied.

Russert originally told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby but had no recollection of it, according to an FBI report Wells read in court. Russert said Wednesday he did not believe he said that.

Wells spent a considerable amount of time in cross-examination Wednesday undermining Russert's general recollection of past events, reports CBSNews.com's Jennifer Hoar.

Wells seized upon a 2004 interview that Russert had granted to a Washington Post reporter in which he failed to mention a phone call he had made to a different reporter, from Russert's hometown paper, The Buffalo News. Russert was later lambasted for not remembering the call in an article titled, "Tim, Don't You Remember?"

Russert was also grilled about whether or not he had told the NBC News President Neal Shapiro that he had discussed his 2003 phone call with Libby with an FBI agent. Russert said he didn't recall if he had mentioned that to Shapiro, Hoar reports. Wells appeared troubled by this as Russert indicated that he and Shapiro were close.

Russert will be back on the stand on Thursday; Wells says he has about two more hours with his cross-examination.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/politics/main2443275.shtml

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


49 posted 03-11-2007 02:34 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Thank you for calling me on that one, Reb, as I had posted what I had understood from print and media without knowing the full story.  I could've sworn I had a non-neocon source for that, but almost all the google hits now have anti-Bush buttons, slogans and sundry.  Since I can't find it, I have to concede the error as it cannot be substantiated.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors