Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

cyclops, tell me the exact words of what you told somebody yesterday. Now, don't commit perjury, because what if I go ask that person what your exact words were. I would like to ask Fitz the exact words of what he said yesterday on the phone. They guy is a loser playing a gotcha game over a crime that he has never found to be a crime. If Armitage commited a crime, go after him, after all, hes known about Armitage almost from day one, otherwise declare the case dead. The guy is a total loser.

Okie, what about disclosure of classified information, conspiracy, treason, etc.? It makes Whitewater look like Sunday at the park.

That is from your perspective, Advocate. For treason, one must demonstrate that classified information was known to be classified and that the intent was malicious in process of revealing it. Relative to covert agent status, one must know the agent was covert and one must intentionally and knowingly reveal the status for malicious purposes. None of this has ever been established by this investigation, in fact not even close it does not seem, Advocate. In fact, there is evidence Plame's identity was known already for a few years. In Whitewater, there was clear corruption in terms of people being bilked out of money, and people were convicted and sent to prison, plus the investigation led to other suspicious activities, including but certainly not limited to, the president lying under oath in court.

If there is treason here, then why isn't Fitz going after Armitage first and foremost long ago?

Your personal insults don't change the fact that he is widely considered to be one of the best prosecutors in America. He busted up a lot of organized crime prior to working on this case and has several other high-powered prosecutions going on.

Now, you'd better goddamn well believe that if I was talking to the FBI, and in front of a grand jury, that I wouldn't lie. The 'I don't remember' defense is pathetic and ridiculous in the face of evidence. Libby was popped because his lies were so egregiously bad; Rove had a better defense.

My guess is that Fitz is trying to work a conspiracy or other case against several members of the admin. Of course, they are playing as much defense as they can, so it remains to be seen how it will turn out.

Cycloptichorn

Okie said:

That is from your perspective, Advocate. For treason, one must demonstrate that classified information was known to be classified and that the intent was malicious in process of revealing it.

WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY. BTW, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THIS.

Relative to covert agent status, one must know the agent was covert and one must intentionally and knowingly reveal the status for malicious purposes. None of this has ever been established by this investigation, in fact not even close it does not seem,

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? ARE YOU PRIVY TO ALL THE EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE I HAVE SEEN SUPPORTS THAT SHE WAS COVERT AND THAT ROVE, ET AL., WERE BEING MALICIOUS.

Advocate. In fact, there is evidence Plame's identity was known already for a few years.

NO ONE TRIED TO HIDE HER NAME. BUT HER IDENTITY AS A COVERT AGENT WAS INDEED HIDDEN.

In Whitewater, there was clear corruption in terms of people being bilked out of money, and people were convicted and sent to prison, plus the investigation led to other suspicious activities, including but certainly not limited to, the president lying under oath in court.

EXPOSING PLAME AIDED AND ABETTED OUR ENEMIES, WHICH IS MUCH WORSE THAN GETTING A BJ IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

If there is treason here, then why isn't Fitz going after Armitage first and foremost long ago?

FITZ HAS NOT ADVISED ME ON THIS.

There is no treason anywhere in this case,no matter how hard the left wants there to be.
Advocate,its apparent you have never read the Constitution and the legal definition of Treason.

To assist you in your education,the definition of treason is article 3,section 3 of the Constitution.
It is the only crime defined in the Constitution,BTW.

Here is what it says...




Now,please show me exactly how the Plame case fits this definition,and how you are going to convict anyone for it.
If you notice,there is a very strict requirement for the evidence needed to convict.

What "evidence" have you seen that supports the claim that she was "covert," as that term is defined in the IIPA?



No, there is "evidence" that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA was known by several journalists for several years prior to Novak's article.



Of course, but what Clinton did that was so egregious was he lied under oath while sitting as the President of the US. The fact that he got a BJ in the oval office is merely indicative of his poor character.

Although I believe we've had this conversation already, to no avail, what "evidence" do you have that "exposing" Plame "aided and abetted" our enemies .... particularly in light of the likelihood that Plame was exposed by Aldrich Ames in the 1990's, and brought stateside for that reason?

Relax - its bound to come out soon; I'm sure Dan Rather and Jason Leopold are on the case even as we type. Expect Air America to break the news at any moment.

Oh? really okie? Please point out Armitage's name in any of the court documents filed by Fitzgerald. Please point to Novak or Armitage revealing he was the source in any press report prior to this month

You two should be ashamed of yourselves. It's doesn't matter what the actual consequences are; it is and was a scummy thing that was done for scummy, scummy reasons and here, we find you two apologists trying to defend it.

What does that make you?

What does it make us? Pragmatic realists thoroughly unpersuaded any such set of circumstances obtains as those desperate to make something other than a farce of the Plame Game continually, futiley, and lamely grasp at. Also somewhat amused.

Ticomaya, Timberlandko and Okie--

The essay below describes the findings in the new book by Isikoff from Newsweek---


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 29, 2006
Plame and the 'Bush Lied' Meme
By Jack Kelly

A new book by Michael Isikoff, an investigative reporter for Newsweek, and David Corn, who writes for the far left wing magazine The Nation, casts many powerful people in Washington in an unflattering light -- but not the people who Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn wish to besmirch.

A brief review for those of you who have lives, and who consequently haven't been following closely the details of the Plame Name Game: In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

First in leaks to reporters, and then in his own op-ed in the New York Times, a retired diplomat, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, said the president was lying. His claim to speak with authority was that in the spring of 2002, the CIA had sent him to Niger to see if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there.

Mr. Wilson's charge was important because it marked the beginning of the "Bush lied" meme about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee; the Robb-Silberman Commission on prewar intelligence, and the British Butler Commission all concluded it was Mr. Wilson who was not telling the truth. Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium in Africa, as even Mr. Wilson himself had acknowledged to the CIA officers who debriefed him after his Niger trip.

One of the false claims Mr. Wilson made was that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney. In his July 14, 2003 column, Robert Novak disclosed that he had been sent instead at the insistence of his wife, Valerie Plame, who worked at the CIA.

Ms. Plame had once been an undercover operative. Concern was expressed that the leaker had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Mr. Wilson blamed the leak on White House political guru Karl Rove, claiming it was payback for his "whistle-blowing." A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to investigate the charge. Mr. Fitzgerald eventually indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then the chief of staff to the vice president, on a charge of having lied to a grand jury about from whom he had learned of Ms. Plame's occupation. He is awaiting trial.

No indictments have been brought on the charge Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate, because it is clear there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The act applies only to those who are operating under cover overseas, or who have done so within five years of the disclosure of their identities. Ms. Plame had been manning a desk at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. for longer than that.

Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn disclose that it was then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to Bob Novak, which is not exactly news to those who have been following the case. But Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn provide details which reflect poorly on Mr. Armitage, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the journalists who knew the truth at the time.

Mr. Armitage disclosed to his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and to Justice Department officials his role in the case in October, 2003, after a second Novak column, Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn say.

For more than three years, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been accused, falsely, of being the source of the leak. Mr. Armitage, Mr. Powell, and Justice department officials knew the truth, but said nothing. Clarice Feldman, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, described Mr. Armitage's silence as "inexplicable and perfidious."

"Had he spoken out publicly immediately, could there have been a reason for the press to have demanded the appointment of the feckless special prosecutor?" she asked.

Mr. Fitzgerald knew in his first few days on the job that Mr. Armitage was the leaker; that the leak was inadvertent, and that the Intelligence Identities Act hadn't been violated. Yet he has persisted in a sham prosecution.

Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn write that: "the Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about prewar intelligence."

They add, lamely, that: "The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework."

They don't mention that Mr. Isikoff and (especially) Mr. Corn have been among the journalists flogging this meme, and the time that it takes to research and write a book indicates they've known for quite some time that it isn't true. They're only willing to tell the truth, now, for money.

end of quote


Particularly interesting points:

l. Mr. Wilson was not telling the truth about the attempt of Iraq to buy Yellowcake Uranium in Africa.

2. No indictments have been brought on the charge Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate because it was clear that there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act

3. Mr. Fitzgerald knew in his first few days on the case that Mr. Armitage was the inadvertent leaker and that THE INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES ACT HAD NOT BEEN VIOLATED.

**************************************

Anyone who has evidence that any of those points are in error, are asked to provide it!!!

All correct Bernard, and although I've posted this already, it is a good quick summary:

http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjRkNzg4NmRjNTcwZWYzYmI5NjBjOTI1NWVjZjNmNTc=

Here is that article in its entirety, which is a good short summary:

Thanks, Okie, both Articles blow the left wingers right out of the water. This is another instance of mud slinging which ends up blowing right back into their faces showing them to be just partisan hacks!!!

Another one of their touted scandals that was going to bring down Bush and the hated Karl Rove bit the dust, Bernard. How many of them are there now? There are so many, I've forgotten half of them. I'm waiting for the Abramoff mess to blow up in their face next. What other ones are there that are still pending?

There is the Surveillance issue which will be referred to the Appelate Court soon. I am sure that you remember the left wing ACLU judge who attacked the President's policies.

The Sixth Appealate will overturn her decision since, as most court watchers have commented, it is "full of holes".

They haven't won one yet, Okie! Even the decision concerning the procedures to be used in trying the inmates at Gitmo is being reviewed very carefully by the Military Lawyers.

They tried to smear Vice President Cheney, but the courts ruled that he did not have to reveal the names of those who met with him to review energy policy.

If I have it correct, this is the one where the judge rules in a case involving the ACLU, and it turns out she is directly involved with the ACLU, and she fails to recuse herself because of a conflict of interest. This on top of the fact that her decision was a total disaster in terms of judicial reasoning. I fail to see how this judge could dare to have the gall to do this. She should resign because of total embarrassment, never to be heard from again, but she probably won't, proving one thing, Bernard, these people are arrogant through and through. Is it arrogance, stupidity, or both?

The articles contain nothing but patent nonsense.

The Armitage disclosures don't somehow eliminate the culpability of Rove and Libby.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200609010001?src=other

No, there is "evidence" that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA was known by several journalists for several years prior to Novak's article.

[/i]i doubt this, and note your failure to name them. moreover, this doesn't disprove an effort to hide her id[I/]



Of course, but what Clinton did that was so egregious was he lied under oath while sitting as the President of the US. The fact that he got a BJ in the oval office is merely indicative of his poor character.

[/I]Unlike Bush, Clinton's lie didn't kill anyone.

Although I believe we've had this conversation already, to no avail, what "evidence" do you have that "exposing" Plame "aided and abetted" our enemies .... particularly in light of the likelihood that Plame was exposed by Aldrich Ames in the 1990's, and brought stateside for that reason?[/quote]

this is contradicted by her continuing to operate for the CIA a cover company (and drop) devoted to tracking nuclear development in Iran.

I hope the Bushobes do keep looking for what ain't there, and keep pouring energy and emotion into the Plame Game; bigger backlash.