Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW did Tico ever admit that he wrong about Plame not being covert.?

I'll give you three guesses.

These guys will never give up their position; it doesn't matter how much evidence comes out.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW did Tico ever admit that he wrong about Plame not being covert.?

I'll give you three guesses.

These guys will never give up their position; it doesn't matter how much evidence comes out.

Cycloptichorn

A point and a question:

1. I never claimed Plame was NOT covert. It seems no matter how often I remind you folks of that, there are those with mental capacities too limiting to allow them to retain or process that information. What I have continuously done is point out to you rabid anti-Bushies that there had not been any evidence that she was "covert" as that term was defined in the IIPA. And while many of you were willing to place faith in your strong belief that she was, fueled by your intense hatred of Bush, and supported by little more than the mere fact that Fitzgerald was conducting an investigation, I maintained that an investigation alone does not prove the underlying subject of the investigation. That is still the case.

2. Has there been any evidence provided to establish that Valarie Plame was in fact "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA, at the time of the disclosure of her identity by Novak? If so, what is the nature of that evidence?

The CIA's definition is not the same as the IIPA, and they use the terms classified and covert interchageably. As far as I'm aware, based on the facts as I know them to be, the only "evidence" that Plame was "covert" is a recent court filing by Fitzgerald, which rises to the level of persuasive evidence only if one considers statements by prosecuting attorneys of their view of the facts to be dispositive. A prosecutor is certainly able to claim a particular defendant committed a crime, but that is hardly conclusive evidence that the defendant did in fact commit the crime. And I suspect you leftists are willing to believe a prosecutor's statement as conclusive only when they support your political ideology, and at no other time. And so finally, years later, we hear Fitzgerald state his opinion on her status, but it remains that he was unwilling to present any clear evidence of Plame's status during any meaningful legal process. And will he ever comment on why he never indicted anyone for the crime he was paid to investigate?

First, if you read the answer to Rox's question, you'll note that I did not indicate one way or another how you had answered to anything, but merely invited her to guess.

But, on to the material point: There is ample evidence that Plame was covert under the IIPA.

During the Waxman/Plame hearings, Waxman read a statement given to him by Hayden which affirmed a few neccessary points:

1st, that Plame was considered a covert agent by the CIA.

2nd, that the CIA was taking steps to protect her identity.

3rd, that Plame had served overseas. When questioned whether she had served overseas during the requisite time period, she affirmed that she had not only done so with respect to the date she was outed, but had done so within 5 years of the date of the hearing.

What's left in the IIPA? Intent. And exactly what do you think the Obstruction of Justice charges pertain to, exactly?

Barring any further events I declare you the winner of our bet.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, if you read the answer to Rox's question, you'll note that I did not indicate one way or another how you had answered to anything, but merely invited her to guess.

I know, but you must understand I try not to respond directly to Chrissee/Harper/Roxxxy/Nickky/Etc. if at all possible.

Quote:

But, on to the material point: There is ample evidence that Plame was covert under the IIPA.

During the Waxman/Plame hearings, Waxman read a statement given to him by Hayden which affirmed a few neccessary points:

1st, that Plame was considered a covert agent by the CIA.

2nd, that the CIA was taking steps to protect her identity.

3rd, that Plame had served overseas. When questioned whether she had served overseas during the requisite time period, she affirmed that she had not only done so with respect to the date she was outed, but had done so within 5 years of the date of the hearing.

Again, more self-serving statements that do not prove the material issue. As I said, the CIA's definition of covert is used interchangeably with their definition of classified, and who knows what their definition of "served" is.

Quote:

What's left in the IIPA? Intent. And exactly what do you think the Obstruction of Justice charges pertain to, exactly?

Barring any further events I declare you the winner of our bet.

Cycloptichorn

What do I win? Just the opportunity to gloat in this post?


...


...

Okay, I enjoyed that.

Again, more self-serving statements that do not prove the material issue. As I said, the CIA's definition of covert is used interchangeably with their definition of classified, and who knows what their definition of "served" is.

Ticomaya wrote:

Again, more self-serving statements that do not prove the material issue. As I said, the CIA's definition of covert is used interchangeably with their definition of classified, and who knows what their definition of "served" is.

First, the quibbling about the definition of 'covert' is immaterial. She was NOC, with a covert/confidential/classified whatever identity which was not admitted by the gov't. The CIA was taking affirmative steps to keep her identity revealed. What more evidence would you need that she was 'covert?' At the very least, there's enough to bring charges and let a judge sort out such objections.

The 'served' clause is the same way. It's unclear in the IIPA, as it isn't defined. So for the CIA to say she 'served' is good enough to bring charges.

You are quibbling about definitions, when what you should be doing is admitting that some evidence does exist that yes, she was covert under the IIPA(what else could a NOC be?), and yes, she had served overseas. Hiding in the fact that the definitions of these words aren't clear in the IIPA is a backslide from earlier claims that she was neither covert nor had served overseas. I honestly believe that the CIA is more able to make determinations about the legitimacy of these issues than you or I, and they say that she was covert and had served overseas...

You say that the statments don't 'prove' the issue. But that's for a jury to decide, not you or I.

All we can look and see is that there is ample evidence that the IIPA was violated, enough to bring a case to trial - if there was only one more piece of evidence, that being Intent. Super-difficult to prove, and thus the Obstruction of Justice charge.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya, I find it strange that the CIA now may claim with the court filing that Plame was covert, however, if that were the case when Novak talked to Hayden, how come Hayden revealed her identity, or confirmed her identity to Novak? That appears to be a direct contradiction of their own policies, and if anyone broke the law or facilitated the outing of Plame, it appears to me that the CIA itself should bear a large part of the blame.

And the court filing is a new spin, as in the press conference long ago, I recall Fitzgerald went to special efforts to make no claim of any covert status as defined by the law, which was one huge reason that I turned against this investigation from the very start. Now, this court filing seems like sort of an afterthought, oh by the way, we do think maybe she was covert. Huh, now after how many years and still no action in regard to the actual crime? My thought is, if she was covert, Fitz, how come no indictments for the actual crime?

If anything, I think this case points out more than anything else, the mismanagement of intelligence work by the CIA. And mismanagement of the investigation by Fitzgerald.

Ticomaya, your thoughts about Hayden talking to Novak?

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

If there's enough, then why were none brought? Surely Fitzgerald would bring charges if he had enough evidence to prove his case. No charges were brought because he doesn't have enough evidence to prove his case. Are we to conclude, therefore, that a crime was in fact committed?

It should be pointed out that Novak's and Harlow's recollections of exactly what was said and how it was said differ in important ways. Novak is no dummy and fully recognized the problem he faced if he was told that Plame was covert. I do not think he would have run the story if he had been told anything that indicated that she was, and in fact his information indicated the exact opposite. We don't know for sure which man is now telling closer to the truth about the conversation, but I of course think it is more likely Novak, for the simple fact that if Harlow protested the story so much as he says now, why would he confirm her identity in the first place? When evaluating the accuracy of Novak and Harlow, you look for consistency, and Harlow's story is not totally consistent. Reminds me of the saying that "I can keep secrets, but the people I tell them to can't."

Novak Changes His Story--a Fourth Time

by emptywheel

Bob Novak, faced with the evidence that his story is BS, has now changed his story ... a fourth time. And even while he changes his story, he suggests Armitage is the unreliable one.

Novak's Changing Story, Part One

Novak wrote this column, clearly, to insist that Armitage told him that Plame worked in Counter-Proliferation, probably because if Armitage didn't say that, then either someone else did, or Novak was high when he used the word "operative." Novak makes this claim twice:

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

[snip]

He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission.

But Novak has been utterly inconsistent in his story about what Armitage said. Here's what he said in his original column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

Note, the only attribution he gives to the CPD identification is to the CIA [update--and as pollyusa notes below, they don't clearly say Plame is a CPD employee]. He changed his story the first time when he switched his attribution that Fall, when he blamed Armitage:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.

He didn't make any claims as to how Armitage described Plame when he first started speaking this summer.

Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission

But then he changed that story when Bret Hume interviewed him, now describing what Armitage said as something which would be either WINPAC or CPD.

His wife worked in the office of nuclear nonproliferation in the CIA, and she suggested he go.

In short, Novak's version of what Armitage said to him has taken 5 different forms since he first published this leak in July 2003.

* CIA labels Plame as Counter-Proliferation (CPD)
* Armitage labels Plame as CPD
* Armitage doesn't say anything about CPD
* Armitage labels Plame as Nuclear Non-Proliferation (not CPD)
* Armitage labels Plame as CPD

Novak's Changing Story, Part Two

Well, if you're not dizzy yet, you may soon be. Novak changed his story with his second major point in this column, where he describes Armitage's leak as deliberate.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

In his first column, Novak didn't describe whether the leak was intentional or not. But in his interview with Phelps and Royce, he made it clear that both SAOs came to him to give him this leak, not just Armitage. And he said that they gave him Plame's name (a claim that is, as they say, "no longer operative.")

"I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

But by October, when he was thinking primarily of saving Novak's ass, he revised that story totally, now claiming,

First, I did not receive a planned leak.

[snip]

It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.

But now he claims Armitage deliberately leaked this detail.

He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

Hey Novak!?!?!? I thought you said the interview was a general one, not specifically about the Wilson column. Are you changing your story on that, too?

Well, he seems to be. But as to the more central question of whether Armitage intended to leak this information, Novak seems to have adjusted his story again so it doesn't contradict what Phelps and Royce said:

* No indication of whether the leak was intentional
* The leak was intentional
* It was not a planned leak, it was an offhand comment
* It was something Armitage thought should be in his column

Of course, Novak's story still has changed from the quote he gave Phelps and Royce, where he said both SAOs gave him the leak intentionally.

Novak Makes Me Laugh

So, after revising his central claims about Armitage for a fifth and a fourth time, respectively, Novak tries to claim he is more reliable on these issues than Armitage:

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors.

Damn, I had managed to avoid getting dizzy with Novak's changing story. But now I'm laughing so hard I'm faint!!!

Tico,

Quote:

If there's enough, then why were none brought? Surely Fitzgerald would bring charges if he had enough evidence to prove his case. No charges were brought because he doesn't have enough evidence to prove his case. Are we to conclude, therefore, that a crime was in fact committed?

To prove in a court of law that the IIPA is broken is a high feat, because the lynchpin of the entire case - intent - is very difficult to prove. Without first-hand testimony about conversations that took place establishing intent, it's hard to bring a case to trial. Fitzgerald won't bring a case unless he has a good chance of winning. I'm not sure what part of this equation gives you the evidence that there was no crime committed; ...

... remember that Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice, and that's exactly what his ObJustice did - keep any possible IIPA charges from moving forward.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico,

Quote:

If there's enough, then why were none brought? Surely Fitzgerald would bring charges if he had enough evidence to prove his case. No charges were brought because he doesn't have enough evidence to prove his case. Are we to conclude, therefore, that a crime was in fact committed?

To prove in a court of law that the IIPA is broken is a high feat, because the lynchpin of the entire case - intent - is very difficult to prove. Without first-hand testimony about conversations that took place establishing intent, it's hard to bring a case to trial. Fitzgerald won't bring a case unless he has a good chance of winning. I'm not sure what part of this equation gives you the evidence that there was no crime committed; ...

I didn't say there was any evidence that no crime was committed. What I'm curious about is why you feel there was a crime committed when there is absolutely no evidence to prove an ESSENTIAL element of the crime. Where there is no evidence of an ESSENTIAL element of a crime, there is -- therefore -- no evidence that a crime was committed. Why is that line of reasoning so difficult for you to follow?

... remember that Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice, and that's exactly what his ObJustice did - keep any possible IIPA charges from moving forward.

Cycloptichorn