0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:50 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.


We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.


Perhaps we need to see it written on CIA letterhead?


CIA letterhead discussing the revelation of a covert agent and the dates they contacted the DoJ about that fact are located here...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf

Anything on when they asserted that everyone in Gitmo was a terrorist?
Your speculation vs the CIA determination reported to law enforcement are apples and oranges.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 01:59 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.


We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.


We know it is a known fact because the CIA said as much to the Dept of Justice on several occasions. See here..
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:13 pm
parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.


We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.


Perhaps we need to see it written on CIA letterhead?


CIA letterhead discussing the revelation of a covert agent and the dates they contacted the DoJ about that fact are located here...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf


I've read the letter, and I don't see anything about "covert agent." You're making a large logical leap of faith, one I'm not willing to make. But you go right ahead and do it ... I'm just pointing it out.

Quote:
Anything on when they asserted that everyone in Gitmo was a terrorist?
Your speculation vs the CIA determination reported to law enforcement are apples and oranges.


Please see my response .... HERE.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:27 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Provide your source of the CIA claiming everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, preferably written on CIA letterhead.


I forgot to type those last two posts to you slowly ... my fault. Maybe if you just read them slowly it will have the same effect. Try reading THIS POST in particular. Good luck.

And in case you forgot, you didn't answer my questions in that last post to you.

Your question does not deserve an answer since it is based on a faulty premise as I keep pointing out to you.

You compare apples to oranges then want to know why I won't believe an apple is an orange. An apple is not an orange. The fact that the SPECIFICALLY referred a case about a covert agent being revealed in no way relates to your claim that

"Okay. The CIA thinks everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist. Case closed'

You obviously meant that the CIA had said that and I should believe it. One small little problem. You provided no evidence of the CIA saying that.

1. We know the CIA said that Plame was a covert agent covered under Fed law based on their referring the case to the DoJ.
2. You asked that I believe something that you provided no evidence for. The people detained in Gitmo are under miltary control, not CIA. There is no evidence that the CIA has ever made determinations on everyone in Gitmo, or anyone for that matter. Military tribunals were what was used to classify them. Not CIA tribunals.

The CIA argued that a law was broken when Plame was revealed. You are arguing that it was not. The CIA has information of 2 items required for the law. The status of Plame as an agent and the status of when she worked under cover overseas. Your argument is that the CIA claimed there was a law broken while knowing full well the status did not meet the requirements. I find your argument lame.

In a court of law the CIA would and will be required to show such. Not a big deal. They will be able to do so. When it comes to Gitmo and the Plame case your question is lame on several counts. One I showed above. The other is that evidence of a possible criminal act is not the same level as incarcaration for that act. If Rove was presently in jail then you could compare him to Gitmo detainees.

Because the CIA felt this met the standard of the law doesn't mean that Rove is guilty since there are other areas of the law that must be met that the CIA does not have knowledge of. It is those areas that the prosecutor is attempting to discover. The CIA said what it knew which was the part of the law covered by 426. You are free to argue they lied all you want. Go for it. Please continue to do so. I will be more than happy to continue to point out the fact that you are calling the CIA liars.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:38 pm
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Each one has his own set of facts supporting that conclusion, and no I don't know what those facts are. But the decision to detain them should be made upon an articulable set of facts, not merely because the CIA thinks they should be held indefinitely.

Quite. The Gitmo case is a complicated total of elements, some of which we can not know, others are for all of us to review in the news and reports.

You have come to the conclusion that the detainees there are probably terrorists, on the basis of the different things you have read about it. Not just on the basis of what the CIA says or didn't say.

Similarly, I'm sure Parados, like the rest of us, has come to the conclusion that there are probably a significant number of innocents at Gitmo on the basis of a scope of information. Knowing Parados, he has not come to that conclusion simply because he does or does not want to believe the CIA; he has reviewed the prospect of what the CIA might know, and balanced it off against all the other information he has read that would suggest otherwise. And this of course is where your equation with the Plame case (and your allegation of hypocrisy or at least inconsistency to Parados), falls flat.

I, for one, do not believe all detainees at Gitmo are probably terrorists and I do not believe so, not because I simply wouldn't take the CIA at its word, but because I have seen enough other information IMO to suggest otherwise.


Quite off topic, but what might that be?

Quote:
In comparison, have you seen any information regarding Plame's status that would give you reason to not accept the CIA's assertion on the matter? Could you share it with us?


I'm asking a particular question, one I've phrased several times now, and one which as of yet has not been answered. Let me restate it here: According to the prevailing theory of the liberals convinced of Rove's guilt, when the "leak" occurred, was Ms. Plame a "covert agent" as defined in Sec. 426 because she had served within the preceding five years outside the United States?

I thought it was a simple question, but nobody can answer it. The CIA certainly hasn't answered it. Based on a vague statement in the CIA letter that references a "possible" violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information," a task the CIA is charged to do in order so the DOJ can investigate the case and determine whether a crime in fact did occur, the left is prepared to leap to the conclusion that Ms. Plame satisfies the legal definition of Sec. 426.

Quote:
If your argument is simply - well, I don't know anything that would refute the CIA's assertion about Plame's work for them, but I am simply not willing to just take them on their word on it - then you are going a lot further than Parados or the rest of us are going re: Gitmo.

Our unwillingness to believe the CIA on Gitmo is at least based on pieces of information that in our eyes contradict it. Your unwillingness to believe the CIA on the question of who actually worked for them would be based on - sheer principle?


LOL ... no, but I am unwilling to believe the CIA has determined that Ms. Plame satisfies the definition of "covert agent" when there is no evidence to suggest they've done so. The reference in the letter is vague at best, and we don't know what laws they are talking about, or what legal determinations have been made in the course of their satisfaction of their duties under Executive Order 12333.

Quote:
(Now that would be quite a can of worms - did you show the same unwillingness to take the CIA on its word when it came to Saddam Hussein's alleged posession of WMD, for example?)


But as I say above, it isn't that I don't believe the CIA, I just don't assign to the statement made in the January, 2004, letter the importance you anti-Rove folks do.

Quote:
See, I was actually going somewhere with that ;-)

There's also the question of sheer scope of course: not taking an agency's word on the guilt of hundreds of people at a stroke is quite another thing than not believing their statement about a single employee of theirs. But that flaw in your equation was already clear enough, I think.


No ... there may be a flaw in my thinking, but if so, you've not identified it. If the CIA was trying to make a statement about their employee in the January, 2004, letter, we don't know what it is. Perhaps they think it's possible the protections of the law extend to their former covert agent, Ms. Plame. I don't know. But again, my question remains unanswerable. And apparently not a single leftist can admit it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:39 pm
Tico...
Are you really going to argue that an "undercover CIA employee" can not be a "covert agent"? and is not covered as such under 426?

I find that argument laughable.. I will have to bookmark that one for when and if there is a trial to trot it out as your defense. It's too funny. 426A specifically defines covert agent as an undecover CIA employee that works or has worked overseas. This puts us right back to your argument that you have no evidence of Plame being overseas for any assignment..

Gee. That would be classified and the CIA would have that information to make the determination if revealing her name violated the law and they DID make that determination. Your only logical refutation is that the CIA either failed to read the law or they lied.

Which argument are you making Tico? Are you calling the CIA investigators incompetent or liars?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:43 pm
The Letter to Conyers implies possible wrong doing, but that could be just about anything. It does not explicitly say that Valerie Plame was a covert agent or that she was intentionally outed. That could be inferred, but only by speculation. It meaning could also be an effort to clear up an accusation that somebody intended to commit a crime. We honestly can't know what was in the memo sent over to the DOJ at this time.

It seems that 90% of the investigations conducted through the government are to determine if a crime has been committed much more than they are to convict somebody accused of a crime.

Because of Conyers uncharacteristic silence on this issue, I think it is not beyond all possibilities that it is even Wilson himself who was the subject of that memo:

Admittedly the following is from the official GOP website, but it does pretty well detail all the defense against Wilson's version of the facts:

Thursday, July 14, 2005
Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements


1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President's Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: "[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)
Vice President Cheney: "I Don't Know Joe Wilson. I've Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don't [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: "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." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

"[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson's Report. "Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: "Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release, 7/11/03)

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium "Allegations." "I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." (NBC's, "Meet The Press," 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson's Niger Report Was "Thin" And His "Homework Was Shoddy." (Michael Duffy, "Leaking With A Vengeance," Time, 10/13/03)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador's Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts' Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
"For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ?'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04)

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?" Joe Wilson: "No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson's Wife Proposed Him For Trip. "Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife ?'offered up his name' and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, ?'my 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.'" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife's Suggestion. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?" Joe Wilson: "The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it's in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton's Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. "The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: "Well, I Don't Know. Obviously, There's Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It's Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee's Been Involved In This In A Big Way …" CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But They Weren't Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report." Wilson: "No, They Weren't." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson's Report "Lent More Credibility" For Most Analysts "To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports." "Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq":

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post "The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ?'The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.'" (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, "The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003]." (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ?'Misspoken' To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ?'Forged.'" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC's Katie Couric: "What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: "Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously." (NBC's "Today Show," 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In "A Little Literary Flair" When Talking To Reporters. "[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ?'a little literary flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "?'A Little Literary Flair'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson's Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

"On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews, Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: ?'Wilson's Wife Is Fair Game.' Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A ?'Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.'" (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, "Don't Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson," New York Post, 5/4/04)

"For Example, When Asked How He ?'Knew' That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ?'A Little Literary Flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "?'A Little Literary Flair,'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

The Boston Globe: "In Essence, Much Of Wilson's Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth." (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, "?'Truth' Makes Much Of Bush Controversy," The Boston Globe, 5/4/04)

Newsweek's Evan Thomas Wrote In The Washington Post: "[W]ilson's Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As ?'Rumint,' Or Rumor Intelligence." (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, "Indecent Exposure," The Washington Post, 5/16/04)
9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

"The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

However, "The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan "Centrist":
Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC's Jamie Gangel: "You are a Democrat?" Joe Wilson: "I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/14/05)

"[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart." (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)

Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05)

Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05)

Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race," The Associated Press, 10/23/03)

"[Wilson] Admits ?'It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.'" (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 02:54 pm
parados wrote:
Tico...
Are you really going to argue that an "undercover CIA employee" can not be a "covert agent"? and is not covered as such under 426?


I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. IN FACT, I SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED HAVING SAID THAT IN A POST REPLYING TO YOU .... HERE.

Quote:
I find that argument laughable.. I will have to bookmark that one for when and if there is a trial to trot it out as your defense. It's too funny. 426A specifically defines covert agent as an undecover CIA employee that works or has worked overseas. This puts us right back to your argument that you have no evidence of Plame being overseas for any assignment..

Gee. That would be classified and the CIA would have that information to make the determination if revealing her name violated the law and they DID make that determination. Your only logical refutation is that the CIA either failed to read the law or they lied.

Which argument are you making Tico? Are you calling the CIA investigators incompetent or liars?


And I, on the other hand, will bookmark this post and pull it out to show your relative lack of reading comprehension.

My argument, for the umpteenth time, .... <typing slowly again> ... is that the CIA has only suggested the possibility that a law might have been violated ... they did not state that Ms. Plame fits the definition of Sec. 426. . They aren't the prosecutors, that's not their role. They pass the information to DOJ, and allow for a full investigation, then wash their hands, not having had to make the determination that no crime occurred.

If you haven't grasped this by now, it's probable you won't.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:01 pm
Re: 'Mark of Rove': Attack, leave no trail
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
'Mark of Rove': Attack, leave no trail
His Texas opponents saw pattern in political operatives' campaigns
07:45 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 13, 2005
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN - As Texas' top political operative, Karl Rove honed an ability to damage an opponent without clear evidence that he was responsible.


which is why when i heard ol' nervous norvis, ken mehlman, tearfully moaning on and on about how poor defensless karl was being "smeeearred! partisans are besmurching his good name! he shows up for work every day! and, and, and partisans are just smearrring him !!!", soda pop shot outta my nose so hard it knocked a picture of the wall across the room.

jeeezzzz. rove may or may not be guilty of a "legal crime" or whatever. but for cryin' out loud, it is a complete farce to try and paint the guy as bambi.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:05 pm
He isn't superman either, and I would be damned frustrated trying to do my job with reporters hounding my every step, seeing myself accused every night on the nightly news, being on the front page of every newspaper, and knowing the Democrats were leaping in front of every camera demanding that I be investigated, reprimanded, fired, or tarred and feathered.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:06 pm
Rove doesn't deserve the punishment so many people want to dole out on him. I think 100,000 years of continuous rape by the most vile demons in the deepest pits of hell should me more than adequate retribution for Karl.

After that give him a glass of lemonade and send him home to his boy-lover.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:08 pm
Re: Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears
From the initial post ...

blatham wrote:
Quote:
Rove Source of Plame Leak?
Editor & Publisher reported this just before midnight Friday. Time Magazine has turned over documents to the Grand Jury which is investigating the Valerie Plame leak. On the McLaughlin Group Friday night, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, said that the leak came from Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/182409.htm




I wonder what else O'Donnell knows.
Following his comments through Editor and Publisher has been interesting.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:33 pm
Foxfyre
Foxfyre wrote:
He isn't superman either, and I would be damned frustrated trying to do my job with reporters hounding my every step, seeing myself accused every night on the nightly news, being on the front page of every newspaper, and knowing the Democrats were leaping in front of every camera demanding that I be investigated, reprimanded, fired, or tarred and feathered.


Rove earned it; he's getting it---way too long over due. He is a real scum bag. Smart, but a scum bag nevertheless.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 03:34 pm
Gus
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Rove doesn't deserve the punishment so many people want to dole out on him. I think 100,000 years of continuous rape by the most vile demons in the deepest pits of hell should me more than adequate retribution for Karl.

After that give him a glass of lemonade and send him home to his boy-lover.


Don't you think Jeff Gannon is too much exposed for Karl to go back to him?

BBB
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 04:59 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The Letter to Conyers implies possible wrong doing, but that could be just about anything. It does not explicitly say that Valerie Plame was a covert agent or that she was intentionally outed. That could be inferred, but only by speculation. It meaning could also be an effort to clear up an accusation that somebody intended to commit a crime. We honestly can't know what was in the memo sent over to the DOJ at this time.



Implies possible wrong doing? No. it states there is a possibility of a crime based on the evidence CIA has.

What does the CIA have? It has the name of an agent that has been revealed in the press. It has a law that specifically talks about how revealing an agents name can be a crime. The only way it can POSSIBLY be a crime is if the known facts by the CIA point to a violation of that law.

I will explain it for Tico in my next post. Feel free to read it and explain how you think the CIA failed to meet its requirements.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 05:16 pm
Ticomaya wrote:

I'm not asserting she's not a covert agent. I recognize I don't have all the facts at my disposal. You'll recall my first question was asking whether it's been established -- or just assumed -- that she's a covert agent.
Oh? what are you saying then? If she isn't a covert agent then you are asserting what? The CIA claimed she was. You are questioning their classification. OK. Fine.. what evidence do you to contradict the CIA which is the ONLY source that would have the relevent information. Such information would be obviously classified since a trip overseas as a covert agent would have to be that. You are requiring that you be given information that can not be provided then asking if it is true because you aren't being given that information. A lame argument on your part Tico. Using that argument one could make the case that Rove is obviously guilty since they don't have information that the prosecuter has.

Quote:
What authority are you deferring to? This is the whole point. I've seen nothing to establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent, except for you all claiming: (A) "of course she's a covert agent," (B) the fact that CIA has suggested the possibility there might have been a law violated means she's a covert agent, and (C) -- my personal favorite -- the fact that Fitzgerald is investigating the matter means she's a covert agent.

For all I know, the CIA knew that at one time Ms. Plame was a CIA covert agent (probably up until 2002 [1997 + 5 years] if certain reports are to be believed), and relied upon that in taking their position. They might be looking at a different law entirely. But I'm not aware of there being anything to suggest definitively that the CIA has concluded that Ms. Plame fits the Sec. 426 definition of "covert agent" at all times material herein.

So while I'm interested in engaging in a legal analysis of this particular issue based on the known facts, you folks would prefer to not do that. I imagine it's because you can't prove she's a covert agent based on the known facts. And you can't bring yourselves to admit it, for some reason. Perhaps there are facts that exist that establish Ms. Plame is a covert agent ... perhaps Fitzgerald has information that will establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent ... perhaps the CIA has facts that will establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent. But at the present time you don't know what those facts are, or frankly, whether any such facts exist.


The facts are Tico that the CIA examined the law and the revelation and concluded that based on those facts there was the possibility of a crime. Lets assume for a moment that your argument is correct and Plame was NOT overseas in the last 5 yeas and did not meet the standard set out in 426. If that was the case then there is NO possibility of a crime, is there. The ONLY way there can be the possibility of a crime being committed in revealing the identity of an employee of the CIA that was undercover is if it meets the standard set out in 426. In order for your argument to have any validity Tico it means that the CIA was incompetent or lying.

REPEAT - If Plame did NOT meet the standard set out in 426 then there is NO POSSIBILITY of a crime.
The CIA said there WAS that possibility hence either Plame did meet that standard or they are lying or incompetent. There are NO OTHER CHOICES here Tico..

Can you present ANY OTHER reason of why the CIA would say there was the possibility of a crime Tico? I can see NONE based on the specifics of what the CIA alleged was the crime.

As you have repeatedly stated Tico the ONLY way it could POSSIBLY be a crime is if Plame met the standards in 426.. The CIA said it was POSSIBLY a CRIME.

This argument is one a child could understand Tico. Either it is POSSIBLY a crime or it is NOT POSSIBLY a crime. IF the standards of the crime are NOT MET then it can't POSSIBLY be a crime. The CIA stated it was POSSIBLY a crime. They can't know the intent or the access to Classified information of the leaker but they CAN know the classification of Plame. They could NOT say it was possibly a crime if Plame did not meet the standards set out in the law. There is ONLY one conclusion. the CIA states that Plame meets the standards in 426. You are calling them either incompetent or liars in your statement Tico. I want to know which you think they are.

DO you think the CIA is incompetent Tico?
Do you think the CIA is lying Tico?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 05:21 pm
Parad0s wrote
Quote:
I will explain it for Tico in my next post. Feel free to read it and explain how you think the CIA failed to meet its requirements.


Perhaps you can elaborate or even post how I even inferred that the CIA failed to meet its requirements, much less said that. All I said is that based on the letter to Conyers that you posted, there is no clear conclusion about much of anything or anybody that can be drawn.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 05:22 pm
Watching "Hardball" right now .... David Gregory is the guest host.

"First Amendment Attorney" Bruce Sanford is his guest, and he agrees completely with my position. He helped write the the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with Toensing. He says the law was intended to protect agents abroad, and not designed to be the basis of a leak investigation. He says Plame does not appear to fit the definition of a covert agent.

Gregory is flabbergasted.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 05:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
He isn't superman either, and I would be damned frustrated trying to do my job with reporters hounding my every step, seeing myself accused every night on the nightly news, being on the front page of every newspaper, and knowing the Democrats were leaping in front of every camera demanding that I be investigated, reprimanded, fired, or tarred and feathered.


ummm, guess he's feeling the pain of some of his previous victims then, eh ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2005 05:37 pm
parados wrote:
The CIA claimed she was.


No, they haven't. And the sooner you come to grips with that fact, the better.

Quote:
You are questioning their classification. OK. Fine.. what evidence do you to contradict the CIA which is the ONLY source that would have the relevent information. Such information would be obviously classified since a trip overseas as a covert agent would have to be that. You are requiring that you be given information that can not be provided then asking if it is true because you aren't being given that information. A lame argument on your part Tico. Using that argument one could make the case that Rove is obviously guilty since they don't have information that the prosecuter has.


I'm saying the only way we are going to know is to wait and see. You are the one suggesting you know facts that aren't in evidence. You don't think that's "lame"?

Quote:
The facts are Tico that the CIA examined the law and the revelation and concluded that based on those facts there was the possibility of a crime. Lets assume for a moment that your argument is correct and Plame was NOT overseas in the last 5 yeas and did not meet the standard set out in 426. If that was the case then there is NO possibility of a crime, is there.


I don't know. As I said, neither you nor I know what law they are referring to in the letter.

Quote:
The ONLY way there can be the possibility of a crime being committed in revealing the identity of an employee of the CIA that was undercover is if it meets the standard set out in 426.


That doesn't seem to be what Cyclops thinks. He seems to think there might be some other crimes to be charged.

Quote:
In order for your argument to have any validity Tico it means that the CIA was incompetent or lying.


No again. The CIA, acting in what they view is the best interests of National Security, could have referred this case to the DOJ for further investigation. You are foolish to assume this means Plame is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426.

Quote:
REPEAT - If Plame did NOT meet the standard set out in 426 then there is NO POSSIBILITY of a crime.
The CIA said there WAS that possibility hence either Plame did meet that standard or they are lying or incompetent. There are NO OTHER CHOICES here Tico..


You compound your foolish argument by repeating it.

Quote:
Can you present ANY OTHER reason of why the CIA would say there was the possibility of a crime Tico? I can see NONE based on the specifics of what the CIA alleged was the crime.


I've done so several times. I can't explain why you refuse to comprehend (although my guess is "partisanship").

Quote:
As you have repeatedly stated Tico the ONLY way it could POSSIBLY be a crime is if Plame met the standards in 426.. The CIA said it was POSSIBLY a CRIME.


Again, you are attributing to me an argument I've not made.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 03/01/2026 at 09:34:16