Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

MM, as you should know, outing Plame gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. This is treason.

0 Replies

The Libby trial makes impeachment easy, and obligatory

by Carol Wolman

"Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff until he was forced to resign after being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, is now on trial. The trial transcript is shining a lurid light on the inner workings of the White House during a crucial period in 2003.

The testimony by multiple reporters over the past two weeks has made it clear that Cheney was the prime mover in the outing of Valerie Plame. Cheney was obsessed with discrediting Plame's husband Joe Wilson, who had dared to call Bush a liar, publicly, in a New York Times op-ed piece. Cheney orchestrated multiple leaks about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, from several White House personnel to various key reporters.

Bush must have been aware of it, since his press secretary Richard Armitage was one of the leakers. Libby's defense seems to be that Rove was the main leaker, and that, he, Libby, is being scapegoated to protect Rove and Bush, whose "brain" Rove is. Thus Bush is implicated as well as Cheney.

The prosecutor in the Libby trial, the intrepid Patrick Fitzgerald, has already done the time-consuming investigative work that the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by John Conyers, would otherwise have to undertake. All that remains for the House to do, is to decide whether the outing of an undercover agent for political purposes is an impeachable offense.

Although Bush and Cheney are not themselves on trial right now, and a sitting president cannot be prosecuted in a regular court of law, surely the published testimony in the Libby trial is compelling evidence that Cheney conspired to out a CIA agent, and Bush was complicit. This is a crime, and in context, a heinous crime. Here's the context:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_carol_wo_070214_the_libby_trial_make.htm

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, as you should know, outing Plame gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. This is treason.

Has anyone admitted to committing treason?
Have there been two witnesses that testified to the action?

Has anyone been charged with treason?

Let me ask you something...
Does selling missile technology to the Chinese also constitute treason?
After all,that gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Since NOBODY except the left is even trying to accuse anyone involved with the Plame case of treason,that is a pretty good indication that there is nothing that comes close to treason,except the left's fantasies and their hatred for anything involved with Bush.

0 Replies

mm, Show us anybody that has admitted treason in modern times in the US?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, Show us anybody that has admitted treason in modern times in the US?

Define modern times,and I will answer.
But remember,it can also be 2 witnesses to the same act to convict.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, Timber, is it at all possible that your views are unduly influenced by the party of the alleged miscreants? It certainly seems that way to me.

Seems to me you've got that backwards.

Quote:

I am reminded of Watergate when virtually every conservative virtually screamed that the prosecution of Nixon was based on only Dem vindictiveness. This was in the face of a mountain of evidence that he committed very serious crimes and misdemeanors.

Dunno 'bout you, but I was there then, and no less conservative then than now - perhaps even a bit moreso then than now, in some respects - for instance, I was never a Nixon fan, not even during the Eisenhower era, and I very much was an "I Like Ike" type. I remember things rather differently than you portray, and note specifically that from Agnew's disgrace and replacement and ever increasingly so as actual Watergate/other misdeed evidence mounted, Nixon's "support", even among "conservatives", eroded precipitously, leading to his resignation in the face of what amounted to massive, bi-partisan to the point of being non-partisan public discontent and all but assured conviction-without-dissent on the Articles of Impeachment which had been presented attendendant to Watergate and other misdeeds. Nixon well before the end was "A man alone" ... deservedly so, his other accomplishments, some quite laudible, notwithstanding.

Quote:

You know full well that the administration outed a covert CIA agent, destroying her effectiveness in monitoring nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and wiping out her cover company, which cost the taxpayers millions.

I know full well that some persist in shrilly pressing that evident meme, despite there being only opinion and screed, not finding or even actual evidence, to support the allegation, and despite the fact there exists considerable indication, along with some fair amount of evidence admitted to sworn testimony and multiply corroborated through further sworn testimony, which stands counter to any such allegation as that you endorse.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:
MM, as you should know, outing Plame gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. This is treason.

mm wrote:
Has anyone admitted to committing treason?

Don't worry about the "two witnesses." Nobody (in their right mind) would admit to committing treason - or is that now a prerequisite?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate wrote:
MM, as you should know, outing Plame gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. This is treason.

mm wrote:
Has anyone admitted to committing treason?

Don't worry about the "two witnesses." Nobody (in their right mind) would admit to committing treason - or is that now a prerequisite?

Actually,there HAVE been people who admitted to it.
I just want to know how "modern times" is being defined before I answer.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, I find it interesting that the right doesn't care about the consequences of outing Plame; especially those covert agents in foreign countries that worked with her. It doesn't matter about the "number of years" if those covert agents are still alive. I just wonder if they're still alive after Plame's outing?

If Plame was in fact covert, it might matter, but no such evidence comes forth from Fitzgerald, after years of investigations. And if so, the man that outed her first is Richard Armitage.

Speaking of aid and comfort, and treason, what about the Democrats activities right now in Congress? I would call that aid and comfort, most definitely, probably not to the level of treason, but it is despicable nonetheless. And selling weapons technology to China is treason, in my opinion, especially for campaign contributions. which is also illegal from foreign sources. Two crimes right there, still not addressed. Also what about leaks from the intelligence committees of Congress? Nothing ever done about those.

Another question about this whole affair, which I have never seen answered. How many people working for the CIA write oped pieces about the intelligence work they supposedly did, hitting on the administration they supposedly worked for, without ever submitting a written report on their work they claim to have done? That sounds like aid and comfort, to me. And it certainly is not the way to run an agency like the CIA. The CIA is not commissioned to do political work. They are supposed to collect information and give it to the administration they work for. I do not blame Cheney and the administration for being livid about Joseph Wilson's political activities and vendetta.

0 Replies

From Wikipedia:

Due to the nature of her clandestine work for the CIA, details about Plame's professional career are still classified. While undercover, she described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates", which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. According to Boston Globe reporters Ross Kerber and Bryan Bender, who searched for "Brewster Jennings" in Dunn & Bradstreet, the New Jersey operator of commercial databases, "Brewster Jennings" first entered D&B records on May 22, 1994; but, when contacted directly, D&B personnel would not discuss the source of the filing. Although D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts, given the CIA's later acknowledgment and the dead end reached by Kerber and Bender in their attempts to learning more about it, one does doubt that Plame actually "worked" for it.[7]

Valerie Plame was identified as a NOC by Elisabeth Bumiller, in an article published in the New York Times on 5 October 2003:

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover", and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.[8]

0 Replies

"classified" is not the same as "covert," as defined by the primary law governing this investigation, cicerone. This has been pointed out numerous times. Quit shouting. Laughing

0 Replies

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery.

You guys seem to overlook the obvious. Shouting is needed sometimes to get your eyes to contact what's written.

0 Replies

When it comes to being oblivious to the obvious, c. i., notable is the persistant practice on the part of some who endorse a particular dissident political persuasion of egregiously - and loudly - embarrassing themselves through confusing conjecture, allegation and opinion with evidence, fact, and finding.

0 Replies

If you conservatives feel that Plame wasn't covert, then no one would qualify (in your mind) as covert. I am sure that Iran was delighted when Plame (and her phony company) were outed. I wager it then happily rounded up those who worked with Plame and the firm. That certainly shut a window to information for us relative to what was going on in Iran.

0 Replies

There are surely many "covert" agents. Read the law, Advocate. You have been told how many times what it says, yet you keep posting the same drivel.

0 Replies

O, I have read the law. You have read into the explicit language of the law. We have no right to do this. But assume arguendo that she was not covert within the meaning of the IIAA, she could have been otherwise covert, and a classified employee.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

When it comes to being oblivious to the obvious, c. i., notable is the persistant practice on the part of some who endorse a particular dissident political persuasion of egregiously - and loudly - embarrassing themselves through confusing conjecture, allegation and opinion with evidence, fact, and finding.

Hmmmmm,

Quote:

Washington Post Enables Toensing's Delusions

Larry C Johnson

[read Larry's Bio at the same link; compare it to Timber and Okie's bio.]

Valerie Plame was undercover until the day she was identified in Robert Novak's column. I entered on duty with Valerie in September of 1985. Every single member of our class--which was comprised of Case Officers, Analysts, Scientists, and Admin folks--were undercover. I was an analyst and Valerie was a case officer. Case officers work in the Directorate of Operations and work overseas recruiting spies and running clandestine operations. Although Valerie started out working under "official cover"--i.e., she declared she worked for the U.S. Government but in something innocuous, like the State Department--she later became a NOC aka non official cover officer. A NOC has no declared relationship with the United States Government. These simple facts apparently are too complicated for someone of Ms. Toensing's limited intellectual abilities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/washington-post-_b_41548.html

0 Replies

From PBS:

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

O, I have read the law. You have read into the explicit language of the law. We have no right to do this. But assume arguendo that she was not covert within the meaning of the IIAA, she could have been otherwise covert, and a classified employee.

So,are you saying we are not supposed to take the law EXACTLY the way it was written?
Should we translate it to mean something different then what it actually says?

0 Replies

The law exactly as written means that Fitz failure to charge anyone can have nothing to do with whether she was covert or not.

It is entirely possible and more likely than not that the failure to charge anyone has nothing to do with a lack of a covert nature. The law requires that the person revealing the information be aware she was covert and willfully release that information. That is the most likely reason for failure to charge anyone. Proving a willful revelation of classified information is harder to prove than proving she was covert or that her position was classified. In fact the statements made by the court and the prosecutor make it more than clear that her position was classified. Covert is another question, but it has been hinted at.

With the way the administration bandied about that information amongst themselves it is no wonder people heard it without knowing her position was classified. They talked about her openly amongst themselves. The statements are damning in and of themselves. This was an obvious attempt to smear Wilson, damn anything else.

To argue that she couldn't be covert because no was charged makes as much sense as arguing someone must be alive because no one was charged with murder. The only argument for why someone wasn't charged is that the prosecutor feels they don't have enough of a case to convict. It doesn't mean anything else.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know