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

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.

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.

Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2003 to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) regarding any contacts of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating under cover. The DCI has asked me to respond to your letter on his behalf.

Executive Order 12333 requires CIA to report to the Attorney General "possible violations of criminal law." In accordance with Executive Order 12333 on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the DoJ noting concern with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed DoJ that the CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DoJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003.

By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed DoJ that the Agency's investigation into this matter was complete, provided DoJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. In a 29 September 2003 letter, DoJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DoJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

I hope the information set forth in this letter provides the assistance you were seeking.

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime

Quote:

Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.

Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act.

<snip>

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.
"

tico, ya musta forgot your violin today, cause you're playing the hell out of a couple of our fellow posters. very deft lawyerin' there.

now, since we don't know if plame was an undercover agent by definitions that are floating around, why do you suppose that the c.i.a. would insist on an investigation into the public naming of a mere analyst ?

What victims would that be DTOM?

Look what you find when you read what Tico posts:

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.

Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act.

<snip>

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.
"

fixed the inside outside quote thingie

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

tico, ya musta forgot your violin today, cause you're playing the hell out of a couple of our fellow posters. very deft lawyerin' there.

now, since we don't know if plame was an undercover agent by definitions that are floating around, why do you suppose that the c.i.a. would insist on an investigation into the public naming of a mere analyst ?

Thanks, DTOM.

Hard to say. Maybe they're just covering their tails ... maybe they they think there is another law that might possibly have been violated. I dunno.

Here's what I get as I scan through these pages:

Things to remember when discussing anything with a neo-con:

1) They always deny being a neo-con.

2)Anything they say, or was said by any member or fellow traveler of the Majority Party, is true.

3) Anything anyone else says is suspect, conjecture, speculation, without foundation, fuzzy, open to interpretation and, no matter how many links, pages, citations etc are piled on, merely the opinion (worthless) of someone not of or traveling parallel with the Majority Party.

4) Once a truly believed major tenet of their imagination has been devastated by a stroke of reality. (There are WMDs, We know where they are, WTF!) said tenet is relegated to it's second life as a not really the issue issue. Any questions about it are ridiculed as overtime.

5) Neo-cons cannot conceive of making a mistake or mis-step, they cannot believe that any of their ilk could falter or err in any way. (It's a sign of fragile self-esteem and addicitive personality disorder, but leave that for another day.)

6)Mao taught that recitation of the tenets of your beliefs is the key to defeating your enemies. Remember as you discuss anything with them that they are practicing recitation and you are not their countryman but their enemy.

Joe(just on the edge of the center of power, or just on edge)Nation

Ticomaya wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

tico, ya musta forgot your violin today, cause you're playing the hell out of a couple of our fellow posters. very deft lawyerin' there.

now, since we don't know if plame was an undercover agent by definitions that are floating around, why do you suppose that the c.i.a. would insist on an investigation into the public naming of a mere analyst ?

Thanks, DTOM.

Hard to say. Maybe they're just covering their tails ... maybe they they think there is another law that might possibly have been violated. I dunno.

okay. that's all i wanted to get out there.

now, where were you on the night of march the 17th, 1986 ?

now, where were you on the night of march the 17th, 1986 ?


I was still in high school. What about you?

Well ... I think you're partly right.

BLITZER: We're joined here in Washington by Ambassador Joe Wilson.

Mr. Ambassador, welcome back to CNN.

JOE WILSON, FORMER AMBASSADOR: Nice to be with you, Wolf.

<snipped a buncha stuff everyone's heard before to get right to the salient point - timber>

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: 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.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

Source: CNN Transcripts, CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS airdate 07/14/05