0
   

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

 
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:12 pm
Asked and answered.


I know you don't have the chutzpah to be a PI or criminal defense attorney.

You certainly aren't a family lawyer with your misogynistic attitude. So I am guessing you might do real estate and/or wills, trusts, estates assuming you really are a lawyer.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:17 pm
Chrissee wrote:
Asked and answered.


I know you don't have the chutzpah to be a PI or criminal defense attorney.

You certainly aren't a family lawyer with your misogynistic attitude. So I am guessing you might do real estate and/or wills, trusts, estates assuming you really are a lawyer.


Following graduation from law school, I attended post graduate studies and obtained a LL.M in Taxation the following year. Since then I have had a general practice (lots of criminal - both defense and prosecution, lots of domestic (family law), probate (yes, wills, trusts & estates), and civil (some RE, no PI)) and have done a lot of trial work ... and very little tax work. Nowadays, my work is mainly transactional (drafting contracts and other documents, and advising clients) and I get to court more infrequently.

Now, please explain your "misogynistic" comment, because it's off the wall.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:22 pm
I just feel that you are a bit misogynistic. Maybe it is the appalling avatar.

Why haven't you ever settled on a specialty?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:29 pm
Chrissee wrote:
I just feel that you are a bit misogynistic. Maybe it is the appalling avatar.


You must be blaming me for the sins of my avatar. Some people really get angry at my avatar.

Quote:
Why haven't you ever settled on a specialty?


Most lawyers still don't emphasize a particular area of law. There is a trend towards emphasizing one area (can't ethically call yourself a "specialist" unless you are a Patent Attorney or Admiralty Lawyer), but I know few that have limited themselves that way.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:40 pm
Tico said:

Quote:
No .. you made the claim, you ought to substantiate it.


No, I don't 'ought' to substantiate it. And as you said above in a comment to Chrissie, "I don't care."
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:43 pm
Well, don't be surprised if people get upset at your Avatar. Individuals like Chrissee and myself have to deal with this unbelievable idiot currently in the Governor's mansion everyday, and he doesn't have a CLUE as to what he's doing. Which obviously explains his bottom dwelling poll numbers.

But now, back on subject:

Quote:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/2005/07/21/Harwood_Rove.jpg
The Wall Street Journal will break the news tomorrow that not only was the damning State Department memo reported today labeled "secret," it was classified as "top secret."

And, according to WSJ National Political Editor John Harwood, the memo also lists the Plame revelation as "SNF," or "Secret, No Foreign," in terms of parties to whom the information can or cannot be disclosed.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Johnson-Part-1.mp3
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Johnson-Part-2.mp3

More on Larry Johnson

Larry Johnson testified this morning. Duncan found something that Larry said two years ago. Here's what he said. He closes with: " I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this"

The reason I keep bringing Larry onto this blog is because Johnson is not being politically motivated to speak up for Valeri Plame. He has a deep and real understanding of what she is going through and is trying to battle the viciousness that the RNC is using to smear her.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/21/breaking-bloomberg-reporting-that- rove-libby-may-be-subject-to-perjury-charges

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/22/correctingTheRecordOn ValeriePlame.html


CORRECTING THE RECORD ON VALERIE PLAME

by

Larry C. Johnson

I submit this statement to the Congress in an effort to correct a malicious and disingenuous smear campaign that has been executed against a friend and former colleague, Valerie (Plame) Wilson. Neither Valerie, nor her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson has asked me to do anything on their behalf. I am speaking up because I was raised to stop bullies. In the case of Valerie Plame she is facing a gang of bullies that is being directed by the Republican National Committee.

I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 as a member of the Career Trainee Program. Senator Orin Hatch had written a letter of recommendation on my behalf and I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA. From the first day all members of my training class were undercover. In other words, we had to lie to our family and friends about where we worked. We could only tell those who had an absolute need to know where we worked. In my case, I told my wife. Most of us were given official cover, which means that on paper we worked for some other U.S. Government Agency. People with official cover enjoy the benefits of an official passport, usually a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. It accords the bearer the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. At the time I only knew her as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name. So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. Her name did not become a part of my consciousness until her cover was betrayed by the Government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true name.

Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport she could have been executed.

We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Some reports, such as one in the Washington Times that Valerie Plame's supervisor at the CIA, Fred Rustman, said she told friends and family she worked at the CIA and that her cover was light. These claims are not true. Rustman, who supervised Val in one of her earliest assignments, left the CIA in 1990 and did not stay in social contact with Valerie. His knowledge of Val's cover is dated. He does not know what she has done during the past 15 years.

Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. Val has never been a flamboyant, insecure person who felt the need to tell people what her "real" job was. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Joe Wilson and the mother of twins. Despite the repeated claims of representatives for the Republican National Committee, the Wilson's neighbors did not know where Valerie really worked until Novak's op-ed appeared.

I would note that not a single member of our training class has come forward to denounce Valerie or question her bona fides. To the contrary, those we have talked to have endorsed what those of us who have left the CIA are doing to defend her reputation and honor.

As noted in the joint letter submitted to Congressional leaders earlier this week, the RNC is repeating the lie that Valerie was nothing more than a glorified desk jockey and could not possibly have any cover worth protecting. To those such as Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, P. J. O'Rourke, and Representative Roy Blunt I can only say one thing?-you are wrong. I am stunned that some political leaders have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation.

Robert Novak's compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her "cover" company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.

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.

The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie's bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet, she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, "Wilson's wife is fair game".

What makes the unjustified and inappropriate attacks on Valerie Plame and her reputation so unfair is that there was no Administration policy position stipulating that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in February 2002. That issue was still up in the air and, as noted by SSCI, Vice President Cheney himself asked for more information.

At the end of the day we are left with these facts. We went to war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam was reacquiring weapons of mass destruction. Joe Wilson was sent on a mission to Niger in response to a request initiated by the Vice President. Joe Wilson supplied information to the CIA that supported other reports debunking the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. When Joe went public with his information, which had been corroborated by the CIA in April 2003, the response from the White House was to call him a liar and spread the name of his wife around.

We sit here more than two years later and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of "is" was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.

So where are we? The President has flip flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.

Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of "leak" is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.


The lying shills of the Republican party will stop at nothing to destroy this country and cover up for their lies. You now have a Republican who was recommended by none other than Orin Hatch himself, as a former CIA agent who is utterly disgusted with his own party.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:49 pm
Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 10:49 pm
sumac wrote:
Tico said:

Quote:
No .. you made the claim, you ought to substantiate it.


No, I don't 'ought' to substantiate it. And as you said above in a comment to Chrissie, "I don't care."


[Translation: "I couldn't find anything ... so now, I don't care."]
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 11:24 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.

Yes, all those damned CIA agents with all that inside expertise who add "nothing" to the analysis. How dare they voice their expert opinions over the supreme all-knowing posts on these threads.

Next time, I'll defer to Ken Mehlman and Scott McClellan for any expert analysis regarding this... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 11:30 pm
Am I following this correctly? Plame is to be considered covert because she was in the CIA, yet under the law, she can not be defined as such?

"Rove broke the law because I want him to have!"
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 11:36 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.

Yes, all those damned CIA agents with all that inside expertise who add "nothing" to the analysis. How dare they voice their expert opinions over the supreme all-knowing posts on these threads.

Next time, I'll defer to Ken Mehlman and Scott McClellan for any expert analysis regarding this... Rolling Eyes


Johnson voiced his opinion that Plame was "undercover." Is that even being questioned? Are you suggesting being undercover equates to being a "covert agent"? If so, please explain.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 11:37 pm
sumac wrote:
Tico said:

Quote:
No .. you made the claim, you ought to substantiate it.


No, I don't 'ought' to substantiate it. And as you said above in a comment to Chrissie, "I don't care."


Are you sure it wasn't my avatar you thought was being insulting?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 11:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.

Yes, all those damned CIA agents with all that inside expertise who add "nothing" to the analysis. How dare they voice their expert opinions over the supreme all-knowing posts on these threads.

Next time, I'll defer to Ken Mehlman and Scott McClellan for any expert analysis regarding this... Rolling Eyes


Johnson voiced his opinion that Plame was "undercover." Is that even being questioned? Are you suggesting being undercover equates to being a "covert agent"? If so, please explain.

The bigger picture here is certainly MUCH more relevant than defining the difference between "undercover" and "covert." Regardless, the Bush administration has lied so often that their spin is coming back to haunt them:

Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8673342/

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to lawyers in the case and witness statements.

Fitzgerald has spent considerable time since the summer of 2004 looking at possible conflicts between what White House senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury and investigators, and the accounts of reporters who talked with the two men, according to various sources in the case.

Libby has testified that he learned about Plame from NBC correspondent Tim Russert, according to a source who spoke with The Washington Post some months ago. Russert said in a statement last year that he told the prosecutor that "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative" and that he did not provide such information to Libby in July 2003.


Oh, the lies, they just keep on comin'... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 01:26 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.


You need to stick a fork in the ass of your fetish about Plame's status and turn it over, it's done. The Federal Judiciary has already decided in two separate rulings that it considers her status to have been covert under the appropriate statutes at the time Novak outed her.

It is not yours, mine, Larry Johnson's, or even Special Counsel Fitzgerald's decision in this matter, the courts have decided Plame was covert based upon what Fitzgerald's open and ex parte presentations provided to Judge Hogan and the appeals committee.

Crimminy, when you threw down the Appellate Court ruling as your supporting evidence you didn't even take the time to read it thoroughly and learn about Fitzgerald's ex parte presentation to Judge Hogan. But it was described in each Appellate Court ruling as providing basic information for presumption that criminal activity had occurred, and was mentioned as an important feature of the appeal in the amicus brief by Toensiling.

The court rejected the argument that Plame was not covert. Go back and read the pertinent passages on this, not just the ones you posted.

You are claiming that regardless of the assessment by four Appellate Court judges of Fitzgerald's open court and ex parte presentations that show the presumption of criminal activity and a priori demands the state of Plame's status as covert, you remain unconvinced.

It is as if you are demanding evidence on whether a dead body before you actually had lived prior to investigating who murdered it.

I can appreciate that in the course of one's obligations as an attorney one may be required to argue a premise that one knows runs counter to the facts in order to provide the best legal advice possible to win a case, but that level of double-think is not one ought to have on display as a badge of honor outside a courtroom.

Those of us, let's say more classically trained to be objective consider facts more important than winning an argument and find such double-think just repugnant bull$hit.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 01:44 am
sumac, I think you are being a tad harsh about projection of ticomaya's avatar.

after all, mine is a simple pix of a kuvasz; brave, bold, and inquisitive, while his is, well, um, a caricature of a hyperthyroid case sucking on a penis substitute.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 04:53 am
Are some folk here appearing to be obtuse on purpose? Is this discussion mere fodder for intellectual exercise and play for some?

I'm looking for plausible explanations for stupid postings.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 04:54 am
sumac wrote:
Are some folk here appearing to be obtuse on purpose? Is this discussion mere fodder for intellectual exercise and play for some?

I'm looking for plausible explanations for stupid postings.


I think perhaps they might be little breaks to lower the tension.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 05:01 am
You are too generous, goodfielder.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 05:10 am
Question...
If revealing the name of a CIA officer is illegal,did the A&E network commit a crime last night?

They ran a show about Osama Bin Laden,and they interviewed,named,and showed pictures of the former CIA chief of station in Pakistan.
Now,did they commit a crime?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 05:44 am
We don't iknow if the CIA man's status in the TV show was covert, undercover, or anything at all.

It seems to me that if he wants to own up in an interview that he was in the CIA, the network certainly is not in trouble.

The important point of this case seems to be that courts have ruled Valerie Wilson's status was covert.
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 0.04 seconds on 02/25/2026 at 06:51:24