8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 04:04 am
Bet you coulda mustered some suprise had you been Denny.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 08:33 am
I imagine Denny was quite surprised ... things didn't turn out at all as he'd planned that morning.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 09:25 am
timberlandko wrote:
snood wrote:

Just curious. On what do you base your characterization of them as semi-literate and underemployed?


Quote:
Final Jury Composition

The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

The Jury By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men

The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

Enjoy


What gave it away was: "(3) all were Democrats."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:23 am
Transcripts Reveal Reporter's Central Role in Plame Outing
Transcripts Reveal Reporter's Central Role in Plame Outing
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 06 July 2006

Notebooks belonging to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller indicate she may have been told about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson by another White House official before her first meeting in late June 2003 with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted last year related to his role in the Plame-Wilson leak, an attorney representing Libby claims.

According to a May 16, 2006, court transcript obtained by Truthout, Libby attorney William Jeffress told US District Court judge Reggie B. Walton that redacted versions of Miller's notebooks turned over to the defense during the discovery phase of the Libby criminal proceedings show that "Ms. Miller was investigating and focusing on [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson before the very first time that she met with Mr. Libby, that is before June 23, 2003."

"There are numerous entries throughout those notebooks to 'V.F.,' or 'Victoria Wilson,' or to 'Valerie Wilson,' all of which indicate that she [Miller] is talking to someone else about Mr. Wilson's wife," Jeffress said, according to a copy of the 128-page transcript. "What she learned and when she learned it about Mr. Wilson's wife is extremely - it is right at the heart of this case."

Jeffress claims that Miller's notes contain suspicious markings, such as the use of parentheses referring to Plame-Wilson's work at the "bureau." And in an entry dating to a meeting Libby and Miller had on July 8, 2003, Miller's notes indicate that Plame-Wilson works for "WINPAC" or Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control, and includes a question mark at the end of the entry.

Additionally, prior to Miller's interview with Libby, Jeffress claims, Miller had already written down Plame-Wilson's name in her notebook; however, it was inscribed in her notes as "Victoria Wilson," meaning that the disclosure came from someone other than Libby, Jeffress told Walton.

Countering allegations raised by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby and other White House officials were engaged in a "concerted effort" to discredit Wilson by leaking his wife's covert CIA status and identity to the media, Jeffress said Libby was only speaking to reporters to prove that Wilson's claims about flawed Iraqi intelligence had no merit.

"I think it is certainly more likely than not," Jeffress said, "that Mr. Libby, or others in the White House, would have developed this supposed plot to out his [Joseph Wilson's] wife to discredit Wilson if there weren't the fact that the response to Wilson was in the words recorded by another witness of the vice president, 'It would be a serious mistake to do anything less than full disclosure' ... that's what Mr. Libby was about, about getting out the truth."

The May 16th hearing involving Libby's attorneys and lawyers representing NBC News, the New York Times, Time magazine, and reporters including Miller, Andrea Mitchell, and Matthew Cooper of Time, was held to hear arguments about the media companies' refusal to turn over reporter's notes to Libby's defense team.

In a previously undisclosed development, Massimo Calabresi, a Time magazine reporter who shared a byline with Matthew Cooper on the second story printed about Wilson and his wife called Wilson prior to Novak's July 14, 2003, column and discussed with Wilson Cooper's conversation with Karl Rove in which Rove disclosed Plame-Wilson's CIA work to Cooper.

"Now that is a conversation that would be relevant to show what Mr. Massimo said to Mr. Wilson as to how many sources Cooper had," Jeffress told Judge Walton in arguing why Cooper's notes and drafts of his articles should be turned over to the defense.

"Mr. Cooper had said something to Mr. Massimo, at least about his conversation with Karl Rove, which caused Mr. Massimo to call Joe Wilson to ask about his wife and about what Cooper had heard from Karl Rove," Jeffress said.

Cooper "talked to Karl Rove on July 11 [2003]," Jeffress told Walton during the court hearing. "Karl Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have sent Wilson on the [Niger] trip. There is an email by Mr. Cooper, again to his editor, on July 16 [2003], four days after his conversation with Mr. Libby and five days after his conversation with Mr. Rove about the article they are planning to write in which they are going to mention the wife. And the email says - talks about him having an administration source for the information about Ms. Wilson."

Jeffress said that the defense has obtained emails and notes written by Cooper that the reporter sent to his editor following a conversation he had with Libby on July 16, 2003, that prove Libby never mentioned Plame-Wilson to Cooper. Rather, Jeffress said, Cooper mentioned Plame-Wilson's work at the CIA to Libby. These emails, Jeffress maintains, may help prove to a jury that Libby did not intentionally lie to the grand jury when he testified that he found out about Plame-Wilson's work with the CIA from reporters.

Moreover, Jeffress argued that Time should be required to turn over drafts of Cooper's first person account of his grand jury testimony published in Time July 25, 2005, so the defense can determine if it reads differently from the final version of the article that appeared in the magazine and could subsequently help prove Cooper is not a credible prosecution witness.

Judge Walton agreed.

"Upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper," Walton wrote in his May 26 ruling. "This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to Truthout. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. EDIT (Moderator): Link Removed for a preview.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:31 am
Well, if Jason Leopold is reporting it, it must be true.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:54 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Well, if Jason Leopold is reporting it, it must be true.


I agree.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:02 am
Interesting development. Does that mean that the defense is going to finger Cooper to create reasonable doubt?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 02:25 am
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 08:14 am
sumac wrote:
Interesting development. Does that mean that the defense is going to finger Cooper to create reasonable doubt?


Such an attempt could make for some real fireworks. It means the prosecution gets to call others, Rove for instance, to testify that they didn't say anything to Cooper in order to rebut the defense claims.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jul, 2006 01:37 am
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 06:52 am
Quote:


Quote:
On June 30, 2005, Robert Novak appeared on CNN with host Ed Henry and explained that while he could not answer questions about who in the administration gave him Plame's identity, he would soon "reveal all":

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does…I will reveal all in a column and on the air.

In an op-ed on Human Events Online, Novak writes that Fitzgerald has cleared him and that "frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry." But Novak fails to "reveal all," as he earlier pledged, in at least two respects.

1. Novak refuses to identify his primary administration source who revealed to him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA as an undercover agent. He confirms Karl Rove was his second senior administration source, and that CIA official Bill Harlow served as a confirming source. But Novak writes his primary source's name "has not yet been revealed" and "has not come forward to identify himself."

2. Novak also did not explain why he earlier said he was given Plame's identity by the White House as part of an effort to intentionally out her. He said: "I didn't dig it out [Plame's identity], it was given to me…. They [the White House] thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." In his latest op-ed, Novak fails to address this issue, and states simply that Plame's "role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger."

UPDATE: John Aravosis notes Novak's interesting acknowledgement that his account differs from Rove's.



source
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:48 am
Is it Fitzmas?

Quote:
My Role in the Valerie Plame Leak Story

by Robert Novak
Posted Jul 12, 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.

I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.

For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.


Nope, no Fitzmas.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:54 am
Why does it matter who might have leaked her name?

REmember,according to pachelbel...
Quote:
the public has every right to know what is going on.
0 Replies
 
my2cents
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:29 am
denialistas
Just throwing in my two cents on the word usage "denialistas" from one of the first posts. It should be linked to the CEI, like this Denialistas, because of their denial of the existance of global warming. Shocked
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:40 am
mysteryman wrote:
Why does it matter who might have leaked her name?

REmember,according to pachelbel...
Quote:
the public has every right to know what is going on.


In both cases you are dealing with the administration doing something wrong.

In the valerie plame case according to Harlow, the story that Novak repeated to him was wrong and that she was undercover and not to disclose her name.

Quote:
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.


source

Even Rove himself said the person responsible for leaking her name should be fired.

Quote:
Rove then said that after a "careful, thoughtful, aggressive investigation," then the person responsible should be fired.


source


In leaks concerning the administration spying stories, in both cases the administration went around the judicial system and in the latter did not even inform congress until after they knew the story was going to be published. Representative Peter Hoekstra, a strong supporter of bush is critical of these activities.


Quote:
"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."


source
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:51 am
BTW regardless of the fact that Rove has, as of now, not been indicted. There is noting on record from Fitzgerald that Rove is in in the clear.

History will show that, assuming Rove ultimatley escapes prosecution, that he came within a hair's breath of being indicted.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:53 am
Re: denialistas
my2cents wrote:
Just throwing in my two cents on the word usage "denialistas" from one of the first posts. It should be linked to the CEI, like this Denialistas, because of their denial of the existance of global warming. Shocked


I thought I coined that term. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 02:16 pm
I thought Chrissee coined that term. Laughing
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:38 am
I wonder how the media will handle the observations made by Novak that Plame was NOT OUTED. If she was OUTED, that is a crime and must be prosecuted. Fitzgerald is viewed by all as a straight arrow and no one who would let a horrendous crime like OUTING a CIA agent go unpunished.

No one has been indicted for the crime of OUTING Plame.

Why not?????????
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 09:02 am
Mary Matalin continues to spin in the Plame matter.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607120003?src=other

Novak makes it clear that Rove was a "confirming source" in outing Plame. As such, he assisted in disclosing the ID of a covert CIA agent, a treasonous act.

Interestingly, Fitz has not closed the book on possibly charging someone with illegally disclosing classified information.
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 0.11 seconds on 02/23/2025 at 03:10:08