8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:26 pm
The relevant language in the IIPA states:

4) The term "covert agent" means --
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency --
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States....


Regarding the last requirement, the CIA, which complained of the IIPA violation, must have known that she had served outside of the USA during that last 5 years.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:29 pm
Advocate wrote:
I suggest you avoid the ad hominian cheap shots.


Ad Hominem cheap shots?

If you referring to my factually pointing out that you've never substantiated a point I've pressed you on, I suggest you give me a reason to think otherwise.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:33 pm
I haven't been on this thread in a long time, but I swear, Ticomaya, that you could be BernardR on the global warming thread here in Politics.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:36 pm
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.

FITZGERALD: 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.


source
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:45 pm
Advocate wrote:
Regarding the last requirement, the CIA, which complained of the IIPA violation, must have known that she had served outside of the USA during that last 5 years.


Is that the only basis for your claim that there are "grounds for treating Plame as a covert agent under IIPA" .... that the CIA asked Justice to conduct an investigation? Is that the only thing you are relying on to make that claim?

When they referred this matter to Justice, did the CIA advise them a violation of the IIPA had occurred? Did they attempt to limit the scope of the investiation to just the IIPA? No, they didn't ... and you essentially acknowledge as much when you earlier claimed you believed there was a crime committed for leaking "classified information." Your strained reliance here is completely misguided.

But it's very interesting to me to see how much credit leftists will give the CIA (or any government agency, for that matter), what lengths they will go to to believe them, and the utter reliance they place on their decisions and discretion, but only when it suits their interests to do so.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 12:46 pm
sumac wrote:
I haven't been on this thread in a long time, but I swear, Ticomaya, that you could be BernardR on the global warming thread here in Politics.


I have no idea what that means. But I can only assume he is a guiding beacon of light trying to educate the teeming masses of leftists on that thread.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 01:02 pm
Thank You, Mr. Ticomaya. And I can only assume that your Legal Training was of the highest kind since you demonstrate on these threads- reason, logic and, equanimity in the face of ignorance.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 01:12 pm
Oh my God, what have I done?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 02:31 pm
Most people who deny that Plame was a covert agent point to the 5-year requirement of the IIPA. Note that it does not say that the agent must have been "stationed" abroad. The fact is that she did travel abroad on CIA business during that period.


David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believed that the Brewster Jennings & Associates cover had not been done convincingly and that other covers would have been established for her by the CIA.

Former CIA official Larry C. Johnson, who left the CIA in 1989, indicated Plame had been a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [4] Later, he wrote that "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 being exposed by, supposedly, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[2]
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 02:32 pm
Chew on this for a while.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_go_ot/cia_leak_lawsuit

"Former CIA officer sues Cheney over leak B
By TONI LOCY,
Associated Press Writer




WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

Several news organizations wrote about Plame after syndicated columnist Robert Novak named her in a column on July 14, 2003. Novak's column appeared eight days after Wilson alleged in an opinion piece in The New York Times that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in early 2002 to determine whether there was any truth to reports that Saddam Hussein's government had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Wilson discounted the reports, but the allegation nevertheless wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children's lives at risk by exposing Plame.

"This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of ... (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country," the Wilsons' lawyers said in the lawsuit.

Libby is the only administration official charged in connection with the leak investigation. He faces trial in January on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about when he learned Plame's identity and what he subsequently told reporters.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyer last month that he had decided not to seek criminal charges against Rove."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 06:25 pm
The lawsuit can be found here

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060713_%20Plame_Suit.pdf
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 06:59 pm
On page 16, paragraph number 39: "Both Mr. and Mrs. Wilson have been impaired in pursuing professional opportunities as a result of Defendants' actions."

Laughing Yeah, right.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 08:12 pm
Mr Wilson did work for Republican administrations in the past. Do you think one will hire him now if he applied for a job?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 08:46 pm
No, but I don't think one would hire him before this event.

I'm sure they won't be begging in the streets.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 09:34 pm
One thing's for sure ... if this lawsuit makes it past summary judgment it should make for some interesting civil discovery, although depositions will be a long way off, probably after Libby's criminal trial. Obviously, it is important to Plame's case that she prove her identity was a big secret, which may be difficult.

Quote:
Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled

By John Crewdson
Tribune senior correspondent
Published March 11, 2006, 12:33 PM CST

WASHINGTON -- The question of whether Valerie Plame's employment by the Central Intelligence Agency was a secret is the key issue in the two-year investigation to determine if someone broke the law by leaking her CIA affiliation to the news media.

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald contends that Plame's friends "had no idea she had another life." But Plame's secret life could be easily penetrated with the right computer sleuthing and an understanding of how the CIA's covert employees work.

When the Tribune searched for Plame on an Internet service that sells public information about private individuals to its subscribers, it got a report of more than 7,600 words. Included was the fact that in the early 1990s her address was "AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255."

A former senior American diplomat in Athens, who remembers Plame as "pleasant, very well-read, bright," said he had been aware that Plame, who was posing as a junior consular officer, really worked for the CIA.

According to CIA veterans, U.S. intelligence officers working in American embassies under "diplomatic cover" are almost invariably known to friendly and opposition intelligence services alike.

"If you were in an embassy," said a former CIA officer who posed as a U.S. diplomat in several countries, "you could count 100 percent on the Soviets knowing."

Plame's true function likely would have been known to friendly intelligence agencies as well. The former senior diplomat recalled, for example, that she served as one of the "control officers" coordinating the visit of President George H.W. Bush to Greece and Turkey in July 1991.

After the completion of her Athens tour, the CIA reportedly sent Plame to study in Europe. According to her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame was living in Brussels when the couple first met in 1997.

Two years later, when Plame made a $1,000 contribution to Vice President Al Gore, she listed her employer as Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a Boston company apparently set up by the CIA to provide "commercial cover" for some of its operatives.

Brewster-Jennings was not a terribly convincing cover. According to Dun & Bradstreet, the company, created in 1994, is a "legal services office" grossing $60,000 a year and headed by a chief executive named Victor Brewster. Commercial databases accessible by the Tribune contain no indication that such a person exists.

Another sign of Brewster-Jennings' link to the CIA came from the online résumé of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an "engineering consultant" from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA "case officer," the agency's term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants.

On Wednesday the Tribune left a voice mail and two e-mail messages asking about the juxtaposition of the attorney's career with Brewster-Jennings and the CIA. On Thursday, the Brewster-Jennings and CIA entries had disappeared from the online résumé. The attorney never returned any of the messages left by the Tribune.

CIA veterans doubt cover

After Plame left her diplomatic post and joined Brewster-Jennings, she became what is known in CIA parlance as an "NOC," shorthand for an intelligence officer working under "non-official cover." But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections.

Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever."

Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period."

After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: "You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don't drive into headquarters with your car, ever."

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame "may not be alone in that category, so I don't want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point."

According to Fitzgerald, the chief federal prosecutor in Chicago who was tapped to head the Plame investigation, Plame's "cover was blown" in July 2003, when columnist Robert Novak disclosed that Plame "is an agency [CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Two senior Bush administration officials, Novak said, had told him that Plame suggested sending her husband, former ambassador Wilson, to Africa to look into reports that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from the nation of Niger.

A motive to leak?

Novak's column followed by eight days an op-ed article by Wilson in The New York Times recounting his failure to find any evidence of such a purchase during his visit to Niger.

Wilson was responding to President Bush's assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address, on the eve of the war with Iraq, that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative is a violation of the federal Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Although prosecutor Fitzgerald has yet to accuse anyone of violating that law, he won a grand jury indictment charging former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby with perjury and obstructing justice for allegedly making false statements under oath about how and when he learned of Plame's CIA employment, and when he told reporters.

Libby's lawyers, who now question whether Plame's CIA employment really was secret at the time Novak's column appeared, have asked a federal judge to provide them with documents that bear on that issue.

If Plame's employment was not a legitimate secret, and if the national security was not harmed by its disclosure, Libby's lawyers argue, their client would have had no motive to lie about his conversations with reporters.

Fitzgerald has told the court he does not intend to introduce evidence showing that Plame's career, the CIA's operations or the national security were harmed by the disclosure of her CIA affiliation.

Plame's lawyer, Christopher Wolf, said his client would have no comment on any aspect of her CIA career. The CIA also declined comment on any aspect of the Plame case.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 09:56 pm
Quote:
Ex-CIA officer finds new memoir publisher
HILLEL ITALIE
Associated Press


NEW YORK - Former CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose outing led to the indictment of a White House official, has agreed to write her memoirs for Simon & Schuster, weeks after a reported seven-figure deal with the Crown Publishing Group fell through.

...
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 10:48 pm
Novak was on the Hannity radio show today. Some key things he pointed out:

Fitzgerald knew Novaks primary source long ago, although Novak does not know how he found out, but Novak figures the simple fact that Fitzgerald has not filed any charges on anyone blowing Plames cover probably indicates Fitz is not confident that a crime was committed. From the information gathered by Novak, and he knows this subject well, he obviously does not believe anything close to a crime was committed, and is as befuddled as the rest of us as to why Fitzgerald has carried on this investigation 2 1/2 years, when he knew Novak's source very early on, but still has failed to act on that.

The conversation Novak had with Rove was maybe 20 seconds, and the recollection by both are very close to the same. Novak called Rove, not the other way around, and Novak was the one that brought up the subject of Wilson's wife working at the CIA, at which time Rove said Oh, you know about that too, or some such comment. Plames name was not mentioned in this conversation, only that Wilsons wife worked for the CIA and it was she that recommended Wilson for the Niger trip.

Novak called the CIA public information office and the officer confirmed Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and there was nothing in the conversation that led Novak to believe Plame was covert or that she would be endangered by the revelation of her working there.

Wilson consulted Whos Who and found out the name of Joe Wilson's wife, which was Valerie Plame.

Novak is clearly mystified why this investigation continues. I can certainly agree on that.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jul, 2006 10:55 pm
Now with this lawsuit, I think this should be interesting. I think the main thing Plame and Wilson have to gain, or rather to lose, is to further expose their phony agenda. However, you never know what a screwy court can decide. I do look forward to them being cross examined under oath. Since this couple, of Vanity Fair fame, apparently love the limelight, they will get their wish on that. They obviously have been working for the wrong agency, given their appetite to be noticed.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 05:15 am
Advocate wrote:
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.


And you have apparently shown your ignorance of what treason actually is.

Since it is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution,it would have been easy for you to look up what it actually is.

But,since you didnt,here is what the Constitution says...

It is Article 3,Section 3...

Quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted


Notice the part about what it takes to convict.
Also,notice that there is a very specific meaning to the word treason,and that the Constitution is very specific about what treason is.

Of course,if just naming someone constitutes treason,then there are many members of congress,on both sides,that are traitors.

But,if it makes you feel better to think that someone committed treason,knock yourself out.
After all,your happiness is of paramount importance to the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 06:28 am
I am glad that they filed a lawsuit, I am sure if they didn't think they stood a chance of pulling it off they wouldn't have done it and this way a lot of stuff that Fitzerold didn't disclose might be revealed in a civil lawsuit.
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 02/23/2025 at 12:44:12