Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

If we were to assume arguendo* that you are correct, to what do you attribute the holdup with Fitzgerald seeking an indictment of Rove? What's holding up the indictment of Bill Harlow?




(* And that's a really, REALLY big assumption, BTW ... unsupported by any demonstrable facts ... in particular, any facts to support that Plame was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.)

ticomaya, Has it ever occured to you that the Fitzgerald investigation is still on-going? You're a lawyer? Tell us it's not true!

Just curious, Tico. During all your lawyeresque examination and analysis of the facts of the Plame case, do you ever stop to think - what Cheney, Rove, Novak, et al did WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG?

snood, It's called "denial." Their brain is calcified too badly for it to recoup.

Yeah ... I've discussed it at length.

ticomaya wrote:
Yeah ... I've discussed it at length.


Now, there's a lawyerly answer! It skirts the question posed by snood.

Ticomaya- Be patient. Soon the media will have many stories about the alleged Outing of Plame. Fitzgerald's investigation will conclude and then again it will be showed that Mr. Imposter and Mr. Snood have no inkling of just how federal lawyers do.

My son is a lawyer. A good one. Take it from me, Ticomaya, if someone had OUTED Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald would have indicted someone.

The left wing can't bear to have one of their pet theories shot down.

Just as in the frantic effort to get Cheney indicted on the meetings with energy xpecialists, this Plame thing will show that she was not outed.

Then(but since you are a gentleman, you may not indulge) you can show Mr. Imposter and Mr. Snood just how wrong they have been--Again!!!

I'm aware of that, c.i., which is why I asked him what the holdup was, as opposed to why Fitzgerald chose not to indict. Sure he might still indict someone else, but I'm not holding my breath.

Had you read the link proffered by Advocate in his post above, you might have noticed the replication of this exchange from Fitzgerald:



I do not believe there will be any indictments directly related to the leak itself. After all, "the substantial bulk of the work" of the investigation is done, but "it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters."

But hope springs enternal, c.i.

Skirt? I answered the question quite succinctly. The answer to the question is "yes."

Tico, I wish I knew why the investigation is taking so long. As you know, special prosecutors are notoriously slow. How many years did it take Ken Starr to wind up things, costing the taxpayer about $100 M and producing nothing.

BTW, while I think there are grounds for treating Plame as a covert agent under IIPA, the leaker(s) could be prosecuted for leaking classified information. I don't think there is any question that she was a classified agent. There is also the matter of the leaker committing treason, having provided aid and comfort to our enemies.

I understand that the Wilsons may be pursuing civil remedies, which might provide some interesting insight.

I know by your posts, Mr. Advocate, that you are almost completely lacking in reserarch skills. Do you have the ability to post the indictments made by Fitzgerald in the Libby case? You do know, of course, that Karl Rove was officially listed as not being a target. You do know, of course, that Mr. Novak was not indicted.

If you are unable to find the indictments, I will find them for you. You will not find the OUTING of a CIA agent listed there.

Perhaps it is only in your fevered left wing imagination!!

What is the basis of your belief that there are grounds to "treat" her as a covert agent under the IIPA. She is either a "covert agent" under the IIPA, or she isn't. What facts do you know that the rest of us don't that drive your unwavering belief that a violation of the IIPA has occurred?

BTW, what's your take on Fitzgerald telling Rove's lawyer that his client won't be indicted? Strategery on the part of the prosecutor? An effort to get him to lower his guard?

Or is it more likely that Fitzgerald just isn't going to indict Rove?

Tico, you asserted that Plame was not a covert agent under IIPA. Please support that.

Should new evidence become available regarding Rove's culpability, if would not be double jeopardy for Fitz to change his mind about him. In any event, Fitz did not advise me of his reasons for clearing Rove.

Ticomaya- Isn't it obvious that Mr. Advocate doesn't have the slightest idea of how a Federal Prosecutor operates?

You know, of course, now that Mr. Novak has spoken out, there will be reams written by pundits and LEGAL EXPERTS EVERYWHERE. I doubt very much that Advocate( who obviously has few research skills) can find any LEGAL EXPERTS WHO WILL ASSERT THAT SOMEONE WILL BE INDICTED FOR OUTING A CIA AGENT.

When did I assert she was not a covert agent? If I said something to that affect, it was certainly in error, because just as I'm not aware of any facts to confirm she was a covert agent, I'm similarly not aware of any facts to confirm she was not.

So, if you would be so kind as to link me to my assertion that Plame was not a covert agent, I'll be happy to apologize for that error.

But I don't think you can. I think you will find that it was you who asserted there were ground to "treat" her as a covert agent, and I asked you to explain what facts you are aware of that perhaps Fitzgerald and the rest of us are not privy to, that supports your conclusion. And instead of answering my question, you bailed and instead asked a question of me.

Am I surprised that you would do that? Absolutely not. I've never seen you provide a straight answer when pressed, and I was certainly suffering no illusions you would change your stripes now.


Now, just for grins, let me ask my questions of you again:

What is the basis of your belief that there are grounds to "treat" Plame as a covert agent under the IIPA?

What facts do you know that the rest of us don't that drive your belief that a violation of the IIPA has occurred?

You said:

(* And that's a really, REALLY big assumption, BTW ... unsupported by any demonstrable facts ... in particular, any facts to support that Plame was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.)


I guess you didn't clearly assert that she was not a covert agent under IIPA.

I did once analyze this question, which took some time. If I can find my analysis, I will pass it on.

I suggest you avoid the ad hominian cheap shots.

Yes, Ticomaya--You really should ignore the "ad Hominian" (sic) cheap shots.

You can see how many legal texts Mr. Advocate has read, Ticomaya--seeing has how "Ad Hominem" appears quite often.

ticomaya et al wants proof that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent. These morons don't understand the consequences of what Bushco has done to reveal the idientity of Plame.

This is from the CIA:Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."

"This is not just another leak. This is an unprecedented exposing of an agent's identity," said former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, who's now a prosecutor in Royal Oak, Mich., and who also did CIA training with Plame.

The leak of Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other journalists is the subject of a Justice Department investigation that has rattled President Bush's White House. Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is a crime.

Critics say the leak was meant to intimidate critics such as Wilson, a former ambassador who traveled to the African country of Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking uranium ore for nuclear weapons. Wilson found no basis for the claims and later publicly criticized Bush's description of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

One mystery is how one or more officials at the White House knew of Plame's work, since the CIA and other intelligence agencies guard the identities of their covert officers, often even from their political masters.

"The background on an agent typically is not common knowledge," said a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Whoever leaked (the information) probably wasn't supposed to have access to it."

Intelligence officials said Plame worked on an issue high on Bush's list of priorities: the spread of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemical arms, collectively known as weapons of mass destruction.

Human intelligence - as opposed to electronic surveillance - about WMD development and weapons transfers is hard to come by, especially in "hard target" countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Much about Plame's career remains a mystery, and probably will stay that way. The CIA refuses to acknowledge her employment or anything else associated with the case.

Born in 1963, she graduated from Pennsylvania State University and was recruited quickly by the CIA, attending training classes in 1985.

In 1990 and 1991, Plame was attached to a U.S. Embassy in Europe, according to address records, suggesting she may have operated under official cover for a time. Knight Ridder voluntarily is withholding the precise location of the embassy. Plame's name doesn't appear in State Department telephone and embassy directories from that period.

In April 1999, Plame, using her married name of Valerie E. Wilson, donated $1,000 to then-Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. She listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings & Associates.

The name suggested work in the energy field: The late Brewster Jennings was president of the old Socony-Vacuum oil company, predecessor to Mobil, now Exxon Mobil Corp.

A June 2000 listing in Dun & Bradstreet for a Boston-based "Brewster Jennings & Associates" names the company's CEO and only employee as "Victor Brewster" and says it had annual sales of $60,000.

While that might seem like flimsy cover, former intelligence officials say that in fact meticulous steps are taken to create a lifelike legend to support and protect CIA officers operating under nonofficial cover.

The corps of officers using nonofficial cover is small, said former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman, a critic of Bush's handling of intelligence. The program was the subject of an internal battle, he said, opposed by traditionalists, who favored the orthodox method of having spies pose as American diplomats or military officers.

"It was always controversial. There were never a lot. And there are fewer now than there were," Goodman said.

Johnson, the former CIA and State Department official, said espionage training could cost several million dollars, including $350,000 for the first year alone.

It appears that the Brewster-Jennings front was more than what is called "nominal cover," and was used as part of Plame's espionage, Johnson said.

That means anyone she met with could be in danger now, said Johnson, who described himself as "furious, absolutely furious" at the security breach.

On a personal level, if Plame's covert career wasn't over already, it is now.

"My wife's career will certainly change as a consequence of this, but my wife is a star in her business," Wilson said last Sunday on NBC. He added: "I have every expectation that her culture will embrace her and that she will continue to be a productive national security officer. But clearly her responsibilities will have to change as a consequence of this."

Wilson has said his family is taking unspecified security precautions. His wife won't talk to reporters.

"The bottom line is, she's lost her career," said former classmate Marcinkowski.

As a CIA officer operating overseas, "There's only one entity in the world that can identify you. That's the U.S. government. When the U.S. government does it, that's it," he said.

Copyright © 2003 Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Moron Bush's apologist will never "get it."

Mr/. Imposter references a source from Oct. 2003?

I certainly hope that he knows that the Federal Prosecutor had not yet begun his investigation on the Plame "affair".

I hope that Mr. Imposter knows that Mr. Fitzgerald knows four hundred times more than his old article does RE: whether or not Plame was OUTED>

Fitzgerald has indicted no one for what Mr. Imposter's article calls a very serious alleged crime.

Fitzgerald will not indict anyone for outing Plame. But as Ticomaya said, there is no CURRENT claim from legal sources that Plame was indeed outed!