Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Plame testified under oath that, right up to the time she was outed, she went on various secret missions. Had she not been covert, , being a NOC, she probably would have been bumped off.

Foxfyre, you have some new neighbors:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265262,00.html

Here is a Novak piece that bears on the question of whether Plame was "covert." Notwithstanding his conclusion, she was covert.

CIA chief plays Plame game
Contradictions on officer's status: covert or undercover?

April 12, 2007
BY ROBERT NOVAK [email protected]
Seated at the Washington Gridiron dinner last month, I was interrupted by a man crouching at my feet who was dressed Air Force formal with the four stars of a full general. It was CIA Director Michael Hayden, who complained to me profanely that my column had misrepresented him in the Valerie Plame Wilson case. Denying he favors Democrats, Hayden indicated to me he had not authorized Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman to say Plame had been a ''covert'' CIA employee, as he claimed Hayden did, but only that she was ''undercover.''
Keeping busy at a Gridiron evening supposedly devoted to frivolity, Hayden made similar points with Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the House Intelligence Committee's ranking Republican; Republican lawyer Victoria Toensing, expert in national security law, and White House Counsel Fred Fielding. Yet, 10 days later, the CIA and its director asserted to me that the wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson indeed had been ''covert.'' The designation could strengthen erroneous claims that she came under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Nobody ever will be prosecuted under the act for revealing that she worked for the CIA. But Hayden has raised Republican suspicions that he is angling to become intelligence czar -- director of national intelligence -- under a Democratic president. While Hayden proclaims himself free of politics, his handling of the Plame case is puzzling.

Waxman, as House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, sought to breathe political life into the affair with a March 16 hearing featuring Plame. Waxman made news by declaring Hayden ''told me personally . . . that if I said she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement.'' I reported that this revelation stunned Hoekstra, who as Intelligence Committee chairman spent years unsuccessfully seeking Plame's status from the CIA.

At the Gridiron, I heard Hayden tell me he referred to Plame only as ''undercover.'' He apparently said the same thing to Toensing, who testified as a Republican-requested witness at the March 16 hearing. On April 4, she wrote Hayden that in three Gridiron conversations ''in front of different witnesses you denied most emphatically that you had ever told'' Waxman ''that Valerie Plame was 'covert.' You stated you had told Waxman he could use the term 'undercover' but 'never' the term 'covert.' ''

That contradiction concerned Toensing, a former Senate staffer who helped draft the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act. At the hearing, Waxman menacingly challenged Toensing's sworn testimony that Plame was not ''covert'' under the act. Accordingly, she asked Hayden to inform Waxman ''you never approved of his using the term 'covert.' ''

The confusion deepened when I obtained Waxman's talking points for the hearing. The draft typed after the Hayden-Waxman conversation said, ''Ms. Wilson had a career as an undercover agent of the CIA.'' This was crossed out, the hand-printed change saying she ''was a covert employee of the CIA.''

Who had made this questionable but important change? Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff. ''I am completely comfortable with that,'' the general assured me. He added he now sees no difference between ''covert'' and ''undercover'' -- an astounding statement, considering that the criminal statute refers only to ''covert'' employees.

Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, next e-mailed me: ''At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee.'' That also ignores the legal requirements of the Intelligence Identities Act.

The CIA gave me a lot more than either Toensing or Hoekstra received. Toensing's letter to Hayden has gone unanswered. On March 21, Hoekstra again requested that the CIA define Plame's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that ''it is taking longer than expected'' to reply because of ''the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking.''

Hayden was brought into the CIA as an intelligence professional when President Bush fired Porter Goss, who had retired from Congress to go to Langley at the president's request. Goss thought he had a mandate to clean up an agency whose senior officials delivered private anti-Bush briefings during the 2004 campaign. The confusion over Valerie Plame's status suggests the CIA gave Waxman what he wanted, even if the director of central intelligence seemed confused.

Sounds to me like some CIA people, including Hayden, needs to be put on the stand concerning conflicting statements. Further, it sounds like the CIA is confused, and if they cannot even determine what they think from one day to the next and from one person to another, who can anyway? It is the CIA that should be called to account about a miserable and failed record of performance, and not even being able to figure out what a covert agent is.

And did Waxman lie? Who was the mystery person that marked out the word, "undercover," and marked "covert?" And by what authority, was that done, and who originally made that decision and passed it on down? And why is Hayden contradicting himself? Fitzgerald, maybe you need to start over and find out if she was covert, as the CIA does not seem to know from day to day. Once and for all, somebody should determine if Plame was covert. If she was, then Armitage needs to fry. If not, lets forget it and let it rest, as reasonable people said it should years ago. We could have saved alot of money and time.

This is actually quite hilarious, now that the CIA is asked to actually give an answer concerning Plame, backed by something tangible I would hope, something that should have been done years ago, and some were naive enough to think Fitzgerald knew, but obviously he apparently does not and never did. How could he have known if the CIA is still trying to determine it? I hate to suspect it, but I am suspicious that elements in the CIA are now battling each other with some still trying to build the covert status out of none that existed. This last point is speculation on my part, but one thing is fairly sure, and that is there are probably ample politics being played in the CIA, internally, and we will find out about all of this some day in a book.

By the way, it is worth mentioning again that it was Hayden himself that confirmed Plame's identity to Novak before Novak published his column and outed Plame. Simple question, if the CIA knew Plame was covert, how could Hayden have been cleared to confirm her identity? We need to start identifying the actual guilty parties here instead of crucifying a scapegoat, namely Scooter Libby. This is all so simple, and so stupid, and so backwards, and Fitz was a total disaster.

Okie, have you been hitting the bottle?

Armitage first told Novak about Plame's work at the CIA, and Rove confirmed this to Novak.

There is no confusion at the CIA that Plame was covert. Hayden is new to the CIA, and has been confused about this and other things concerning the agency. There is no doubt that she was covert; she went on secret missions for the CIA right up to the time of her outing.

We may be too involved in semantics. I don't see anyone denying that her ID was classified. Disclosing classified information is a crime. For instance, should you disclose the time a troop ship departs from a US port during wartime, you have committed a serious crime. There are crimes outside the IIPA.

Those involved in outing Plame should be shot for treason.

Advocate said...



I doubt that you know the meaning of the word "treason",as much as you and a few others like to throw it around.

FYI,treason is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution,and it has a very specific meaning,and it is also very specific on what it would take to prove it.

For your continuing education,here is what the constitution says.
Its found in article 3,section 3 of the US Constitution...



Now,knowing exactly what the Constitution says,please tell me how you would convict anyone,or what charges you would bring against them?

It is aiding and abetting. You have been told this ad nauseam. What could be more treasonous than what happened in the Plame matter?

Exactly who did they "aid and abet"?

BTW,the Constitution says "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So,exactly who made war against the US,who adhered to their enemies,and who gave "aid and comfort"?

Also,since the ONLY way to convict for treason is..."No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Then HOW are you gonna convict anyone of treason?
You cannot make up your own definition of treason just so you can accuse someone of it.
You MUST use the definition as described in the Constitution.

Therefore,there was no treason anywhere in the Plame case,nor can you hope to convict anyone.

And so did Hayden.


You say there is no confusion, then how come Hayden was and apparently still is confused. He works there and is responsible for determining what information is released. Thats his job, and I would think if anyone at the CIA should not be confused about matters released to the press, he should, of all people there, be one that is not confused.

Semantics is important, extremely important in this case, and there is a large difference between the implications of releasing classified information and releasing the identity of a "covert" agent, as defined by the law.


If you classify treason as an act of leaking classified information to the press, there would be fewer congressmen and staffers alive in Washington these days, many or most of them Democrats.

Please provide names for "many or most of them are democrats?"

I'll gladly let them hang a couple of Democratic congressman if Cheney has to face a firing squad.

We've been hearing for years about leaks coming out of the intelligence committees in Congress, with indications that Democrats or their staffs were involved. How else did Leaky Leahy get his nickname?

okie, Tell us what Leahy is supposed to have leaked. One?

This reading could do for starters. There are plenty more, imposter, just do the searches. And if someone should be shot for hijacking classified information, Berger would be dead for sure.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/13/202146.shtml

Berger did not give aid and comfort to an enemy. Armitage, et al., did, when they exposed Plame as someone spying on Iran's nuclear program. That is treason, and I would be happy to pull one of the triggers.

If you define treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, you are really condemning alot of Democrats. Your position is getting worse all the time, as you continue to explain it, Advocate.

Okie, you make a bare assertion. The Dems are acting in the interests of the USA, while Bush, against all advice, is pigheaded in his determination to plug on to the ruination of this country.

You know, not to generalize, but the 29 percent of people who still support President Bush are the ones who love to pronounce themselves more patriotic than the rest of us. But just saying you're patriotic is like saying you have a...

... big c**k. If you have to say it, chances are it's not true. And indeed, the Party that flatters itself that they protect America better is the Party that has exhausted the military, left the ports wide open, and purposely outed a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. That's not treason anymore, outing a spy? Did I mention it was one of our spies?

And how despicable that Bush's lackeys attempted to diminish this crime by belittling her service like she was just some chick who hung around the CIA. An intern really. Groupie if you want to be mean about it. No. Big lie. Valerie Plame was the CIA's operational officer in charge of counter-proliferation. Which means she tracked loose nukes. So, when Bush said, as he once did, that his absolute, number one priority was preventing terrorists from getting loose nukes, okay, that's what she worked on. That's what she devoted her life to. Staying undercover for 20 years. Maintaining two identities every God-damned day. This is extraordinary service to your country. Valerie Plame was the kind of real life secret agent George Bush dreams of being when he's not too busy pretending to be a cowboy or a fighter pilot.

CIA agents are troops. This was a military assassination of one of our own done through the press, ordered by Karl Rove. He said of Valerie Plame, quote, "She's fair game," and then Cheney shot her.

George Bush likes to claim that he doesn't question his critics' patriotism, just their judgment. Well, let me be the first of your critics, Mr. President, to question your judgment and your patriotism. Because let's not forget why they did it to her. Because Valerie Plame was married to this guy Joe Wilson who the Bush people hated because he busted them on one of their bulls**t reasons for invading Iraq. He was sent to the African country of Niger to see if Niger was selling nuclear fuel to Iraq. They weren't. It was bulls**t. And he said so. In fact, his report was called, "Niger, Please."

Valerie Plame's husband told the truth about their lies, so they were willing to jeopardize an entire network of spies to ruin her life. Wow. Even the mob doesn't go after your family.

Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." And I say Valerie Plame is a patriot because she spent her life serving her country. Scooter Libby is not because he spent his life serving Dick Cheney. Valerie Plame kept her secrets. The Bush administration leaked like the plumbing at Walter Reed.
--Bill Maher

Here is an interesting piece that talks about lost e-mails in the Plame matter, as well as suspicion that Rove destroyed e-mails in Plame. Thus, the issue of lost e-mails came well before the U.S. Attorney firings matter.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0704/S00328.htm

Advocate


Do you suppose this what caused the Republican National Committee to deny Rove the ability to delete e-mails in 2005?

BBB