8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:19 pm
Fitzgerald Will Seek New White House Indictments
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Tuesday 28 March 2006

It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.

These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.

In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.

The sources said late Monday that it may take more than a month before Fitzgerald presents the paperwork outlining the government's case against one or both of the officials and asks the grand jury to return an indictment, because he is currently juggling quite a few high-profile criminal cases and will need to carve out time to write up the indictment and prepare the evidence.

In addition to responding to discovery requests from Libby's defense team and appearing in court with his attorneys, who are trying to obtain additional evidence, such as top-secret documents, from Fitzgerald's probe, the special prosecutor is also prosecuting Lord Conrad Black, the newspaper magnate, has recently charged numerous individuals in a child pornography ring, and is wrestling with other lawsuits in his home city of Chicago.

Details about the latest stage of the investigation began to take shape a few weeks ago when the lead FBI investigator on the leak case, John C. Eckenrode, retired from the agency and indicated to several colleagues that the investigation is about to wrap up with indictments handed up by the grand jury against Rove or Hadley or both officials, the sources said.

The Philadelphia-based Eckenrode is finished with his work on the case; however, he is expected to testify as a witness for the prosecution next year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators regarding his role in the leak.

Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.

Libby and other officials in Cheney's office used the information they obtained about Plame Wilson to undermine the credibility of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. He had alleged that President Bush misspoke when he said, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow-cake uranium, the key component used to build a nuclear bomb, from Niger.

The uranium claim was the silver bullet in getting Congress to support military action two months later. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the country barely had a functional weapons program, according to a report from the Iraq Survey Group.

Wilson had traveled to Niger more than a year earlier to investigate the yellow-cake claims and reported back to the CIA that intelligence reports saying Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger were false.

On Monday, though, attorneys close to the leak case confirmed that Fitzgerald had met with the grand jury half a dozen times since January and recently told the jurors that he planned to present them with the government's case against Rove or Hadley, which stems from an email Rove had sent to Hadley in July of 2003 indicating that he had a conversation about Plame Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Neither Hadley nor Rove disclosed the existence of the email when they were questioned by FBI investigators or when they testified before a grand jury, the sources said, adding that Rove testified he found out about Plame Wilson from reporters and Hadley testified that he recalled learning about Plame Wilson when her name was published in a newspaper column.

Rove testified before the grand jury four times. He did not disclose the existence of the email during the three previous times he testified, claiming he simply forgot about it because he was enmeshed with the 2004 Presidential election, traveling around the country attending fundraisers and meetings, working more than 15 hours a day on the campaign, and just forgot that he spoke with Cooper three months earlier, sources familiar with his testimony said.

But Rove and Libby had been the subject of dozens of news stories about the possibility that they played a role in the leak, and had faced dozens of questions as early as August 2003 - one month after Plame Wilson was outed - about whether they were the administration officials responsible for leaking her identity.

The story Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, provided to Fitzgerald in order to explain why Rove did not disclose the existence of the email is "less than satisfactory and entirely unconvincing to the special counsel," one of the attorneys close to the case said.

Luskin did not return numerous calls for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council said she could not comment on an ongoing investigation and has vehemently denied that Hadley was involved in the leak "because Mr. Hadley told us he wasn't involved."

In December, Luskin made a desperate attempt to keep his client out of Fitzgerald's crosshairs.

Luskin had revealed to Fitzgerald that Viveca Novak - a reporter working for Time magazine who wrote several stories about the Plame Wilson case - inadvertently tipped him off in early 2004 that her colleague at the magazine, Matt Cooper, would be forced to testify that Rove was his source who told him about Plame Wilson's CIA status.

Novak - who bears no relation to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson's name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column - met Luskin in Washington DC in the summer of 2004, and over drinks, the two discussed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Wilson leak.

Luskin had assured Novak that Rove learned Plame Wilson's name and CIA status after it was published in news accounts and that only then did he phone other journalists to draw their attention to it. But Novak told Luskin that everyone in the Time newsroom knew Rove was Cooper's source and that he would testify to that in an upcoming grand jury appearance, these sources said.

According to Luskin's account, after he met with Viveca Novak he contacted Rove and told him about his conversation with her. The two of them then began an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails for any evidence that proved that Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin said that during this search an email was found that Rove had sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately after Rove's conversation with Cooper, and it was subsequently turned over to Fitzgerald.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper on July 11, 2003. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Luskin wound up becoming a witness in the case and testified about his conversation with Viveca Novak that Luskin said would prove his client didn't knowingly lie to FBI investigators when he was questioned about the leak in October 2003, just three months after Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

The email Rove sent to Hadley, which Luskin said he found, helped Rove recall his conversation with Cooper a year earlier. Rove then returned to the grand jury to clarify his previous testimonies in which he did not disclose that he spoke with journalists.

Still, Rove's account of his conversation with Cooper went nothing like he had described in his email to Hadley, according to an email Cooper sent to his editor at Time magazine following his conversation with Rove in July 2003.

"It was, KR said, [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized [Wilson's] trip," Cooper's July 11, 2003, email to his editor said. "Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The email characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger... "

It is unclear whether Rove was misleading Hadley about his conversation with Cooper, perhaps, because White House officials told their staff not to engage reporters in any questions posed about Wilson's Niger claims.

But Fitzgerald's investigation has turned up additional evidence over the past few months that convinced him that Luskin's eleventh-hour revelation about the chain of events that led to the discovery of the email is not credible. Fitzgerald believes that Rove changed his story once it became clear that Cooper would be compelled to testify about the source - Rove - who revealed Plame Wilson's CIA status to him, sources close to the case said.

If any of the people named in this story believe they have been unfairly portrayed or that what was written in this story is untrue, they will have an opportunity to respond in this space.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032806Z.shtml

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:33 am
Quote:
Bush Authorized Leak to Times, Libby Told Grand Jury

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 6, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/30561

A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.

The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.

Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry initially focused on the alleged leak, which occurred after a former ambassador who is Ms. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times questioning the accuracy of statements Mr. Bush made about Iraq's nuclear procurement efforts in Africa.

No criminal charges have been brought for the leak itself, but Mr. Libby, a former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was indicted in October on charges that he obstructed the investigation, perjured himself in front of the grand jury, and lied to FBI agents who interviewed him. Mr. Libby, who resigned from the White House and pleaded not guilty, is scheduled to go on trial in January 2007.

In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.



Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

Mr. Libby told the grand jury that he also sought the advice of the legal counsel to the vice president, David Addington, who indicated that Mr. Bush's permission to disclose the estimate "amounted to a declassification of the document," according to the new court papers.

One of the facts Mr. Libby said he planned to disclose to Ms. Miller was that the estimate, produced in October 2002, concluded that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium." This contention was sharply at odds with Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece which argued there was no evidence of such a procurement effort, at least on a trip he took to Africa at the CIA's request.

Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal. While Mr. Libby said he gave that information "exclusively" to the Times reporter at their breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, many of the findings of the estimate were formally declassified and discussed at a White House press briefing ten days later, on July 18, 2003.

The court papers filed by Mr. Fitzgerald do not make clear whether Mr. Bush knew the disclosure was destined for Ms. Miller, though they indicate Mr. Cheney knew that fact. Mr. Libby is also said to have testified that five days late Mr. Cheney authorized the release to the press of information about a cable about Mr. Wilson's strip.

Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald and his staff, but it is not known how their accounts of the events compared to that of Mr. Libby.

In an interview with Fox News in February, Mr. Cheney, who has a reputation for secrecy, acknowledged that he has sometimes pressed for the official release of classified records.

"I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions," he said.

Asked if he had ever "unilaterally" declassified material, Mr. Cheney replied, "I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

While prosecutors initially said Mr. Libby was the first government official to disclose Ms. Plame's identity, it subsequently emerged that a Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward, learned earlier about her CIA employment from another government official. Neither Mr. Woodward nor Ms. Miller wrote about Ms. Plame at the time. Another journalist, Robert Novak, first disclosed the employment of Mr. Wilson's wife in a syndicated column released on July 14, 2003. The columnist based his story on interviews with Mr. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and another official who has not been officially identified.

Prosecutors argued that Mr. Libby covered up his role in the disclosures because "he knew the White House had publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson." They also noted that Mr. Bush publicly declared he would fire anyone found to have leaked classified information.

The new court filing quotes from handwritten suggestions Mr. Libby gave to the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, urging the spokesman to proclaim the vice presidential aide's innocence with the same vigor that the press secretary previously denounced as "ridiculous" suggestions that Mr. Rove might have had a hand in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.

Mr. Libby's note, as typed up by the prosecution, reads like a stanza of verse:

"People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I've talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information."

Mr. McClellan did not adopt the talking points verbatim, but did tell reporters later that Messrs. Rove and Libby "assured me that they were not involved in this."

Mr. Rove has not been charged with a crime, but remains under investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald's office.


Bush knew about the leak all along. Any time he expressed anger at the leak, he was lying. When he said he would fire anyone found leaking, he was lying. When he said he didn't know anyone in his admin who had leaked, he was lying.

Even though certain executive orders have been signed allowing the Prez and VP to declassify information unilaterally, the identity of a covert agent (The DOJ and CIA have confirmed that she was, in fact, considered covert) is not one of the things that falls under this authority. Mix in the fact that this was done for political revenge against Joe Wilson, and you have a situation where the law was broken for political gain, the prez and vp knew about it (hell, instigated it), and claim 'executive authority' any time they are challenged on breaking the law.

Bush has lied - not been mistaken about intelligence, or had a different opinion, lied - about this issue for almost three years now. I'll write a lot more about this today.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:34 am
Here's Fitz's court filing:

http://www.nysun.com/30561.pdf

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 10:55 am
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

Murray Waas with a buttload of news and timeline on the case

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:06 am
Thanks for the links Cycloptichorn!

I can't wait to hear the spin on this one!
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:17 am
I saw the "Breaking New" item on MSNBC. I wondered what FOX was doing so I flipped to FOX. Fox was covering the congresswoman's apology in front of the House over the incident with Capitol police and about 45 minutes later, they finally announced their own "Breaking News" and managed to have two experts to explain what it really meant. Thank God for fair and balanced. For a minute I was worried that the President was in trouble. He said he wouldn't rest until the truth came out, I guess he will sleep well tonight.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:20 pm
Let's see if we can guess what the Bush/Cheney bootlickers response will be.

I'm going with, "Libby is a disgruntled former staffer and obviously can't be trusted."

Any other guesses?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:23 pm
How about, He heard that Hillary Clinton was about to drop the bomb and beat her to it.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:23 pm
Let me ask this here as well:

dagmaraka wrote:
The reports on NPR say that while the report was de-classified, Bush did not authorize releasing Plame's identity. While I don't know if one is possible without the other, that's a point they keep making and I'm sure it's a point that will be highlighted by the administration, too. so, is it possible to release one without the other?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush knew about the leak all along. Any time he expressed anger at the leak, he was lying. When he said he would fire anyone found leaking, he was lying. When he said he didn't know anyone in his admin who had leaked, he was lying.


Maybe I'm missing something, but what leak are you talking about? We are talking about the leak of Plame's name, right? Has Libby claimed Cheney claimed Bush said to leak Plame's name? Is that what you're reading into this NY Sun article? If so, can you show me where it says that?

Quote:
Even though certain executive orders have been signed allowing the Prez and VP to declassify information unilaterally, the identity of a covert agent (The DOJ and CIA have confirmed that she was, in fact, considered covert) ....


It has not been established by anyone that Plame was covert at the time of the leak of her name. If you think I am wrong, please explain how so.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 12:57 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
It has not been established by anyone that Plame was covert at the time of the leak of her name. If you think I am wrong, please explain how so.

"...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion." Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:12 pm
Quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what leak are you talking about? We are talking about the leak of Plame's name, right? Has Libby claimed Cheney claimed Bush said to leak Plame's name? Is that what you're reading into this NY Sun article? If so, can you show me where it says that?


There are two leaks: the NIE (part of it), and Plame's name. The NIE was probably able to be declassified by Bush or Cheney and was not illegal to disseminate (though the fact they only declassified the part of it supporting their case is highly suspect). Plame's name was not.

Quote:
It has not been established by anyone that Plame was covert at the time of the leak of her name. If you think I am wrong, please explain how so.


You are kidding, right?

In his october press conference, Fitz said:

Quote:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. 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.


So, we know for a fact that she was undercover at the time. Her job at the CIA was classified.

According to one of her former associates at the CIA, Larry Johnson, she was most definately 'covert' at the time:

Quote:
Then there is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person "served" overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.


Yaknow, you could find this stuff out yourself if you bothered to do one minute of Google searches. Here's one that should be pretty clear for ya:

Quote:
The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

There is zero doubt any longer that she was a 'covert' agent.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:13 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration

Quote:
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.




Quote:
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.


Quote:
Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate,"
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:26 pm
For Dag, classified information usually has a date listed on the document to indicate the time it should be reviewed and a decision made if it should be downgraded or declassified. Lots of documents become declassified but are not normally feed into a hopper for everyone's review. I believe that a FOIA request is necessary, not for secrecy so much, but the sheer manpower it takes to comb thru files identifying information.

Since 9/11 the community has taken a different view of declassification practices. Some materials have been restored to classified status despite the fact they previously were declassified. In their defense, I would say sometimes you don't know how valuable the information is until something bad happens. I am not making a criticism of the community, but if you have ever been in a situation where you noticed something unusual that made you take notice, you might not know why until later. At the local Mall, a lot of retired folks walk in the mornings before the stores open. My neighbor noticed a young man in the mall with one of those hooded sweatshirts on, and wondered why he wasn't in school. Turns out she was a witness to the escape of a man who had just robbed the Bose store at knifepoint. Then she realized why he moved so fast and called the police with the information.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 01:59 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
It has not been established by anyone that Plame was covert at the time of the leak of her name. If you think I am wrong, please explain how so.

"...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion." Source


Well, I gotta disagree with your conclusion, Joe.

As I said .... HERE:


On February 12, 2006, Ticomaya wrote:
...

In fact, this is what the "newly released portions" of Judge David Tatel's opinion said:

Judge Tatel wrote:


I draw your attention to the portion: "the record omits specifics about Plame's work." No specifics ... the judge is trusting Fitzgerald would not make the representations "without support."

This is the "representation" Tatel is referring to ... a footnote written by Fitzgerald in an August 27, 2004, affidavit:

Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.


Now, let me highlight the important part of that footnote, because I know you are not going to see it for yourself:

"... it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years."

It appears Tatel has interpreted that to mean Fitzgerald is asserting that the CIA was, in fact, making specific efforts to conceal Plame's identity, and that Plame had, in fact, "carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years."

Was that what Fitzgerald was saying in that footnote, or was he simply pointing out what level of proof would be necessary in order to prove a case under the IIPA? You have concluded it's the former, I suggest it's most likely the latter, but in any event, Fitzgerald has certainly not established that Plame was a "covert agent" at the time her identity was disclosed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 02:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what leak are you talking about? We are talking about the leak of Plame's name, right? Has Libby claimed Cheney claimed Bush said to leak Plame's name? Is that what you're reading into this NY Sun article? If so, can you show me where it says that?


There are two leaks: the NIE (part of it), and Plame's name. The NIE was probably able to be declassified by Bush or Cheney and was not illegal to disseminate (though the fact they only declassified the part of it supporting their case is highly suspect). Plame's name was not.


Right. So are you claiming the article you quoted from and acted as if it was a smoking gun, is claiming Bush authorized Libby to leak Plame's name?

Quote:
Quote:
It has not been established by anyone that Plame was covert at the time of the leak of her name. If you think I am wrong, please explain how so.


You are kidding, right?


No, I'm not.

Quote:
In his october press conference, Fitz said:

Quote:
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. 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.


So, we know for a fact that she was undercover at the time. Her job at the CIA was classified.


There are a lot of undercover operatives at the CIA ... there are a lot of classified positions at the CIA ... there are a lot of positions that are both undercover and classified ... and there are positions that are both undercover, classified, and yet NOT covert (as that term is defined in 50 U.S.C. 426.

Here's the definition, in case you've forgotten:

Quote:


Cyclops wrote:
According to one of her former associates at the CIA, Larry Johnson, she was most definately 'covert' at the time:

Quote:
Then there is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person "served" overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.


Sorry, but I'm not prepared to accept the word of Larry Johnson on the issue of her status as a "covert agent." I understood she was brought back stateside in the mid-90's because her cover was blown by Aldrich Ames. Maybe they let her travel overseas, maybe they didn't, but it's been yet to be established that she served overseas in the relevant time period.

Quote:
Yaknow, you could find this stuff out yourself if you bothered to do one minute of Google searches. Here's one that should be pretty clear for ya:

Quote:
The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

There is zero doubt any longer that she was a 'covert' agent.

Cycloptichorn


See my above response to Joe regarding Judge Tatel's conclusion. There is doubt remaining.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 03:21 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, I gotta disagree with your conclusion, Joe.

I can't imagine why you'd do that.

Ticomaya wrote:
Was that what Fitzgerald was saying in that footnote, or was he simply pointing out what level of proof would be necessary in order to prove a case under the IIPA? You have concluded it's the former, I suggest it's most likely the latter, but in any event, Fitzgerald has certainly not established that Plame was a "covert agent" at the time her identity was disclosed.

I think it's pretty clear that Fitzgerald was saying that Plame was covert. In the footnote that you quoted, he said:
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

Fitzgerald is talking about two different statutes here. Under 18 USC 793, the offense involves disseminating national defense information. It has nothing to do with outing CIA operatives, per se, but if Plame's identity was considered "information respecting national defense," then Libby would be guilty of violating the espionage act.

With regard to 50 USC 421, Fitzgerald says that Libby would be guilty if he knew that Plame was covert. What Fitzgerald does not need to add, however, is that Plame was indeed a covert agent -- another element of the offense under the act:
    Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies [u]a covert agent[/u], intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Source. An offense under the act essentially has three elements: (1) the agent must be covert; (2) the disclosure must be done intentionally; (3) the information must be passed to someone not authorized to receive classified information. What Fitzgerald is saying in that footnote, then, is that there is sufficient evidence for two of the three elements of the offense: that Plame was covert and that the information was passed to some unauthorized individual. What remains an "if" is whether Libby knew that Plame was covert.

Now, is it established that Plame was covert? Well, Fitzgerald clearly believes that she was, but since that is an element of the offense, the government would have to prove it at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, just as it would have to prove that Bob Novak or Judith Miller was not authorized to receive that kind of classified information. Until it is proven at trial, however, I suppose one can always fall back on the argument that it is merely alleged that Plame was a covert CIA operative. As it is, the government probably won't prosecute Libby or anyone else under 50 USC 421, so it will probably never be proven in court that Plame was covert.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 03:49 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
What Fitzgerald does not need to add, however, is that Plame was indeed a covert agent ...


Well, no, he doesn't need to add that, but since he didn't, I don't think it is conclusive he intended to assert she was in fact a covert agent.

Joe wrote:
An offense under the act essentially has three elements: (1) the agent must be covert; (2) the disclosure must be done intentionally; (3) the information must be passed to someone not authorized to receive classified information. What Fitzgerald is saying in that footnote, then, is that there is sufficient evidence for two of the three elements of the offense: that Plame was covert and that the information was passed to some unauthorized individual. What remains an "if" is whether Libby knew that Plame was covert.


I believe you are falling into the same trap Tatel did when he read the footnote. You must acknowledge that one can reasonably read the footnote to be merely a recital of what must be proven to show a violation of 50 USC 421, and not a claim that any of that can be proven, right? I believe there are two "if"s that remain to be shown.

Joe wrote:
Now, is it established that Plame was covert? Well, Fitzgerald clearly believes that she was, but since that is an element of the offense, the government would have to prove it at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, just as it would have to prove that Bob Novak or Judith Miller was not authorized to receive that kind of classified information. Until it is proven at trial, however, I suppose one can always fall back on the argument that it is merely alleged that Plame was a covert CIA operative. As it is, the government probably won't prosecute Libby or anyone else under 50 USC 421, so it will probably never be proven in court that Plame was covert.


I think if Fitzgerald clearly believes that she was a "covert agent" he would clearly state on the record that he believes she was. To date, all he's done is make an ambiguous statement in the footnote of an affidavit. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this?

Beyond that -- and in the alternative -- you are correct that it would merely be an accusation, and hasn't been established.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 06:37 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, no, he doesn't need to add that, but since he didn't, I don't think it is conclusive he intended to assert she was in fact a covert agent.

I think any other reading of that document is highly implausible.

Ticomaya wrote:
I believe you are falling into the same trap Tatel did when he read the footnote. You must acknowledge that one can reasonably read the footnote to be merely a recital of what must be proven to show a violation of 50 USC 421, and not a claim that any of that can be proven, right? I believe there are two "if"s that remain to be shown.

If Fitzgerald singled out only one element of the crime as doubtful, that suggests quite strongly that he believed the other two elements were well established, and that, if the third element could be substantiated, the government would go forward with an indictment. Again, any other reading of the document is simply implausible.

Ticomaya wrote:
I think if Fitzgerald clearly believes that she was a "covert agent" he would clearly state on the record that he believes she was. To date, all he's done is make an ambiguous statement in the footnote of an affidavit. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on this?

It's better than grasping at straws.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 06:46 pm
Gee, don't ya think maybe if she wasn't covert the administration would have said so a looooong time ago?

Why let it get to this point instead of just nippin it in the bud so they could be done with it and have the electorate forget about it in plenty of time for the election?

Wilson: "Hey, you outed my wife in an attempt to make me out to be a low life!!! How dare you out my covert wife!!!"

Cheney: "What's this looney talking about? His wife isn't covert. She's been workin over at headquarters for the last ten years as a paperclip straightner. See, ya can't believe anything this guy says about yellow cake."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/13/2025 at 08:44:41