Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

In fact, Fitzgerald said that his indictments were not the end of the investigation. You are dancing in the end-zone in the third quarter thinking your side has won the game. But this investigation can not be considered as a contest to win but a search for the truth of what happened that caused White House officials to blow the cover of an American spy who was intimately involved in defending the nation from nuclear attacks.

I hear no one arguing over the factual basis of the time-line of the leaking campaign by the White House, except for Libby. No one else is contesting what Fitzgerald has presented as factual in this matter. The time-line shows that those vested with the task of defending us have used their power for purely political purposes to the determent of the security of the nation.

You insist that without an indictment on the disclosure of Plame's covert job at CIA means that there is no problem, no harm, no foul. Even as Fitzgerald states clearly that national security was harmed, you chortle on that since it brings no political harm to your politics, then it is okay. By this, you are in concord with those who have been willing to sacrifice the security of this nation on the altar of their personal politics.

On the issue of the courts deciding that the spurious claims that Plame was a not a covert agent are without merit you are advancing a baseless claim. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative by Bush administration officials is not merely a probe into whether the disclosure violated the IIPA, and if the conditions are not met, then no crime has been committed.

As Victoria Toewnsling and other right wing hacks have on distorting the authority of Fitzgerald's investigation you are attempting to narrow its scope to an investigation of if a single law has been broken.

Fitzgerald's mission is not conditioned or restricted in any such manner.

Quote:

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Patrick:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

Your insistence that the Special Counsel and courts have not determined the state of Plame's covert status with respect to the IIPC guidelines is merely a misdirection in this affair. Plame's classified, covert status is not in question according to the overarching mission and plenary powers of Fitzgerald's authority to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's employment with the CIA. Fitzgerald is authorized to investigate the disclosure under any law relating to this, not only the IIPC. Narrowing as you have the subject of the pertinent laws with respect to this investigation only to the IIPC is fallacious. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to demand the application of the terms of a law that is difficult to enforce in effort to avoid legal retribution. The Special Counsel is not under any such mandate to do so.

At his press conference, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

The federal courts did not decide their cases upon the requirements of the IIPC but on broader legal issues. When you say that the courts did not address the issue of Plame's covert status according to IIPC guidelines, who said that they did or had to? I didn't. I said that they rejected the claim that Plame was not covert and for the intents of the broader terms of the Fitzgerald investigation the courts have decided that her status was classified and covert.

Libby, et. al. may be able to claim that they did not know they were leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question they did not understand that what they were leaking was "sensitive information." The fact is Karl Rove called it "double super secret background" when describing it to Matt Cooper and suggests clearly that Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (that by definition is sensitive).

The risk posed by the information Libby and Rove leaked is multiplied many times over. It occurred at a time when the nation was at war over weapons of mass destruction. And Libby and Rove were risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert in Valerie Plame.

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing.

Wow, smackeroo. BM

Cycloptichorn

kuvasz wrote:

In fact, Fitzgerald said that his indictments were not the end of the investigation. You are dancing in the end-zone in the third quarter thinking your side has won the game. But this investigation can not be considered as a contest to win but a search for the truth of what happened that caused White House officials to blow the cover of an American spy who was intimately involved in defending the nation from nuclear attacks.

I don't intend to debate every bizarre point you can conjure up. Based on my brief observation here at A2K, you are capable of drafting a lot of hooey, and you don't even need a reason. The only reason I'm engaging you in this discussion at all is because you claimed that Fitzgerald identified Plame as a "covert agent," either in the indictment or in his press conference. You specifically said:

"btw: in case your memory fails you your remarks in august contesting whether plame was covert were addressed in the fitzgerald indictment and press conference and as usual you were entirely wrong. but then again, who are we to believe, you or a US attorney.?" LINK

Now it appears you wish to redact your comments, and claim that there will be indictments stemming from the future investigation. While that is possible (although not very likely), that does not make your comment quoted above any more accurate.

Hardly, as I said, when Fitzgerald said that "Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003," there is not anything else that statement could mean, regardless of what else he said in reference to having no comment on it. Complain to Fitzgerald for making the other remark, not me.

kuvasz wrote:

I hear no one arguing over the factual basis of the time-line of the leaking campaign by the White House, except for Libby. No one else is contesting what Fitzgerald has presented as factual in this matter. The time-line shows that those vested with the task of defending us have used their power for purely political purposes to the determent of the security of the nation.

I, for one, am not arguing over the time-line. I truly hope you do not believe you are engaging me in a debate over the Libby indictment, because I am not participating.

kuvasz wrote:

You insist that without an indictment on the disclosure of Plame's covert job at CIA means that there is no problem, no harm, no foul. Even as Fitzgerald states clearly that national security was harmed, you chortle on that since it brings no political harm to your politics, then it is okay. By this, you are in concord with those who have been willing to sacrifice the security of this nation on the altar of their personal politics.

I never said there was "no problem, no harm, no foul." And I must insist that you quote me specifically, because you are perhaps the worst person on this board when it comes to gleaning meaning from written words. (Although parados could offer you quite a challenge for that title, I'm sure.)

So allow me to repeat myself, yet again. I have never said that Plame is not a "covert agent." In the beginning, I raised the question whether it had been determined that she was ... which raised a firestorm of angry protestations from the wacko leftist fringe ("Of course she's covert." ... "What a canard." .... "I can't believe Tico is still questioning whether she's covert."). There has never been any finding that Plame is a "covert agent," and all you folks can do in response to my question is perform the type of illogical reaching you seem so fond of engaging in.

You did.

kuvasz wrote:

On the issue of the courts deciding that the spurious claims that Plame was a not a covert agent are without merit you are advancing a baseless claim. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative by Bush administration officials is not merely a probe into whether the disclosure violated the IIPA, and if the conditions are not met, then no crime has been committed.

Again, I refer you to your prior post made .... HERE. Back in August, I questioned her status as a "covert agent" as that term is defined in the IIPA. You claim that this issue was addressed in the fitzgerald indictment and press conference, and you claim that I was found to be "entirely wrong." As I have proven time and time again, your above post was false. I was not proven to be "entirely wrong." On the contrary, it is you who were wrong, and instead of producing an argument to bolster your position that started this discussion, it appears you are only capable of building strawmen and alleging that the continuing investigation will produce an indictment involving the disclosure of Plame's identity. Pathetic, really.

I did not say that Plame was defined by the courts or Fitzgerald as covert by the terms of the IIPC. I said that the courts had dismissed claims that she was not covert and that in the eyes of the court that made her status covert for future considerations of the Fitzgerald investigation and grand jury. I never claimed her status fell under the IIPC terms for covert.

Fitzgerald's words were "Valerie Wilson had her cover blown." I asked you what else they could mean. You response was to ask if I would reveal my real name on site.

kuvasz wrote:

As Victoria Toewnsling and other right wing hacks have on distorting the authority of Fitzgerald's investigation you are attempting to narrow its scope to an investigation of if a single law has been broken.

Fitzgerald's mission is not conditioned or restricted in any such manner.

Quote:

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Patrick:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf

Your insistence that the Special Counsel and courts have not determined the state of Plame's covert status with respect to the IIPC guidelines is merely a misdirection in this affair. Plame's classified, covert status is not in question according to the overarching mission and plenary powers of Fitzgerald's authority to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's employment with the CIA. Fitzgerald is authorized to investigate the disclosure under any law relating to this, not only the IIPC. Narrowing as you have the subject of the pertinent laws with respect to this investigation only to the IIPC is fallacious. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to demand the application of the terms of a law that is difficult to enforce in effort to avoid legal retribution. The Special Counsel is not under any such mandate to do so.

Plame's "covert" status is very much in question, and Fitzgerald has clearly not said she was covert. As I posted earlier:

Ticomaya wrote:

At his press conference, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Since you profess an uncanny ability to read Fitzgerald's mind, care to explain what he mean in that above quote with respect to Plame/Wilson's status as "covert."

In relief to this statement in the indictment?

[quote]"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

The federal courts did not decide their cases upon the requirements of the IIPC but on broader legal issues. When you say that the courts did not address the issue of Plame's covert status according to IIPC guidelines, who said that they did or had to? I didn't. I said that they rejected the claim that Plame was not covert and for the intents of the broader terms of the Fitzgerald investigation the courts have decided that her status was classified and covert.

Libby, et. al. may be able to claim that they did not know they were leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question they did not understand that what they were leaking was "sensitive information." The fact is Karl Rove called it "double super secret background" when describing it to Matt Cooper and suggests clearly that Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (that by definition is sensitive).

The risk posed by the information Libby and Rove leaked is multiplied many times over. It occurred at a time when the nation was at war over weapons of mass destruction. And Libby and Rove were risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert in Valerie Plame.

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing.

Fitzgerald's words were "Valerie Wilson had her cover blown." I asked you what else they could mean. You response was to ask if I would reveal my real name on site.

The rest of your post does not merit a response.

[What about the "damage" cause by the leak? Can you believe the headline from Saturday in the Washington Post? Are we seriously supposed to believe this was an incident involving a serious breach of national security, while the headline from the Post reads, "CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure." We have a serious "national security threat," ... lives are on the line ... and yet the CIA has decided to wait a few years to assess the damage? Can someone try and explain that one to me?

The Post's article says:

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html]The Washington Post[/url] wrote:

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing.

It seems the CIA is waiting to present its "No Damage" assessment until after any criminal trials are over.

Ticomaya wrote:

[What about the "damage" cause by the leak? Can you believe the headline from Saturday in the Washington Post? Are we seriously supposed to believe this was an incident involving a serious breach of national security, while the headline from the Post reads, "CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure." We have a serious "national security threat," ... lives are on the line ... and yet the CIA has decided to wait a few years to assess the damage? Can someone try and explain that one to me?

The Post's article says:

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html]The Washington Post[/url] wrote:

There is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences -- the risk of anyone's life -- resulted from her outing.

It seems the CIA is waiting to present its "No Damage" assessment until after any criminal trials are over.

This has to be the silliest argument yet from you Tico. "No damage" simply because there is no evidence of lost of life?

They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

Are you sure you think this is my "silliest" argument?

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you sure you think this is my "silliest" argument?

I may have to retract that one. Your dance about Plame not being covered by Title 18 section 793 is becoming sillier. :wink:

Fact - revealing classified information is defined as a crime in Section 793.

Reference: Fitzgerald's remarks, and try to explain how he is saying anything else than that Plame was an undercover (covert) agent whose identity was revealed.

Quote:

"Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Perhaps you think that an overt agent can have their cover blown?

Perhaps he meant that she had lost her hat in a wind gust?

If, as you contest that Fitzgerald did not imply that Plame was a covert agent at the time her status was revealed, then tell us what did he mean? Describe an alternative and more factual corresponding meaning for what Fitzgerald actually said?

If I happen to learn your real name, and post it here on A2K, I would -- in effect -- blow your cover. Are you a "covert agent"?

While on the Larry King show this week, Woodward announced:

Quote:

They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment.

Great news Bob, except there was this other little headline in Saturday's Washington Post:

"CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure"
So, either you had real news and didn't share it with your reporters or you are just making this up? I personally suspect the latter. I have spoken to some people who are in a position to know. There has been damage. My source, however, declined to share classified information.
Let's face it. It is a sickening sight when a man who got his start in Washington as a take-no-prisoners investigative journalist has decided to join the prisoners and excuse their conduct as they destroy national security assets and lie, bald face lie, to the American people. Heck of a job, Bobby!

May you too someday be a big enough man to admit when you are wrong.

I regret too that this admission of error this will obviously reduce me to mere demigod status with chryssie and nikki. I live for the adolation.