Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

okie wrote:

Cicerone, her identity was revealed to the Russians about 1994.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004362.php

Hee hee hee. The link you offered up as "proof" of your assertion actually wonders if that is not a rumor passed on by the Bush Administration.

Quote:

Washington Times has a piece today about the Plame investigation. It's written by Bill Gertz, a national security reporter with pretty reliable links to the Bush administration, and peddles the suggestion that outing Plame's name was no big deal because her identity had already been exposed before: .....

"Peddles the suggestion....." Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your theory, is it Okie? Yet apparently this source is the closest thing you have to "proof".

0 Replies

Okie, are you just being sophistic? Plame's name was never kept secret, but her identity as a covert CIA agent was. Further, assuming arguendo that Ames did compromise her identity to the Ruskies, is there any evidence that this was passed on to Iran? The facts seem to say no.

At this late date, how can you say that Novak figured out her identity by himself? You are by now, I hope, aware that Armitage and Rove told him.

It will be nice to have Cheney testify under oath. I expect him to lie, thus, perhaps down the road, have his perjury exposed.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
Cicerone, her identity was revealed to the Russians about 1994.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004362.php

Hee hee hee. The link you offered up as "proof" of your assertion actually wonders if that is not a rumor passed on by the Bush Administration.

Quote:
Washington Times has a piece today about the Plame investigation. It's written by Bill Gertz, a national security reporter with pretty reliable links to the Bush administration, and peddles the suggestion that outing Plame's name was no big deal because her identity had already been exposed before: .....

"Peddles the suggestion....." Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your theory, is it Okie? Yet apparently this source is the closest thing you have to "proof".

I noticed this right away as the Washington Monthly is a progressive blog. Of course, the rumor was floated to the Washington Times.

0 Replies

It is worth noting that the Washington Times is a right-wing rag owned by the Moonies. It would flop out of existence were it not for the Mooney money.

0 Replies

olie wrote:
Without plowing old ground too much, Plame's identity was compromised long before Bush took office.

keltw wrote:
Or so the Right would want us to believe.

okie, You'll never admit to being wrong. Plame became national and international news after Novak revealed her. Her sources were in "our" government. That you see nothing wrong with exposing Plame shows your complete ignorance of our intelligence efforts by the CIA.

0 Replies

Rather more worth noting is that Wilson, Plame, Rove, Armitage, Novak, CIA, "Leak", "Whitehouse Conspiracy", et al are irrelevant to the charges the Fitzgerald Grand Jury has levelled against Libby. Particularly worth noting is that not only has there been no finding of underlying crime, no charges pertaining to any alleged underlying crime have been filed.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rather more worth noting is that Wilson, Plame, Rove, Armitage, Novak, CIA, "Leak", "Whitehouse Conspiracy", et al are irrelevant to the charges the Fitzgerald Grand Jury has levelled against Libby. Particularly worth noting is that not only has there been no finding of underlying crime, no charges pertaining to any alleged underlying crime have been filed.

Naturally, you forgot the word 'yet.'

Just becuase the Bush crew has worked hard to cover up their malfesance doesn't mean that it didn't take place. Now, it hasn't been proven that they did do it in a court of law... but that's the only place. There has been ample evidence that the upper echelons of the WH colluded to get back at Wilson, as you well know...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"Yet" would be redundant Cyc. As for what I know and you know about The Plame Game, no charges pertainining to any underlying crime have been filed. There is much speculation and assumption, but in terms of fact, only Libby faces any charges, and those charges involve issues internal to the investigation, not to the issue purportedly at investigation.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

"Yet" would be redundant Cyc. As for what I know and you know about The Plame Game, no charges pertainining to any underlying crime have been filed. There is much speculation and assumption, but in terms of fact, only Libby faces any charges, and those charges involve issues internal to the investigation, not to the issue purportedly at investigation.

Yet, this is not an uncommon event when one is going after an organized crime ring - which is not only Fitzgerald's specialty but a situation which describes the Bush WH to a T.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

timber, Put on your thinking hat; that Plame was even revealed to the world is the "crime." Members of the CIA said as much. Not that it has any "legal" bearing - yet.

You're trying to defend the exposure of one of our CIA agents to the world. If you can't see that as wrong, nothing will. Your arguments about criminal charges means nothing.

0 Replies

Timber, you old joker, that no one else has so far been prosecuted for the disgusting act of outing a covert CIA agent does not make the act less egregious. Those who outed Plame are traitors who should be shot.

0 Replies

Advoate, I agree; they should be shot for exposing a CIA agent.

0 Replies

The word "unhinged" comes to mind.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

timber, Put on your thinking hat; that Plame was even revealed to the world is the "crime." Members of the CIA said as much. Not that it has any "legal" bearing - yet.

You're trying to defend the exposure of one of our CIA agents to the world. If you can't see that as wrong, nothing will. Your arguments about criminal charges means nothing.

Then,using your line of thought,shouldn't ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX,CNN and every other news agency also be prosecuted?

After all,they all consistently use former CIA officers as "expert" analysts whenever they are doing a story about national security or intelligence matters.

Now,if any of them worked in the field,by using these people on national television,aren't they running the risk of exposing the covert networks these former agents might have set up?

After all,that is part of what many are saying happened because Plame's name and job was made public.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Timber, you old joker, that no one else has so far been prosecuted for the disgusting act of outing a covert CIA agent does not make the act less egregious. Those who outed Plame are traitors who should be shot.

And you once again misuse the word traitor and you apparently dont know what treason is.

It is the only crime defined in and by the Constitution,and it has a specific legal meaning.

For your education,here is what the Constitution says...

In Article 3,section 3 we get this...

Quote:

Section. 3. 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.

Now,can you please explain to me exactly what part of this was violated by naming Valerie Plame.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
okie wrote:
Cicerone, her identity was revealed to the Russians about 1994.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004362.php

Hee hee hee. The link you offered up as "proof" of your assertion actually wonders if that is not a rumor passed on by the Bush Administration.

Quote:
Washington Times has a piece today about the Plame investigation. It's written by Bill Gertz, a national security reporter with pretty reliable links to the Bush administration, and peddles the suggestion that outing Plame's name was no big deal because her identity had already been exposed before: .....

"Peddles the suggestion....." Not exactly a resounding endorsement of your theory, is it Okie? Yet apparently this source is the closest thing you have to "proof".

I noticed this right away as the Washington Monthly is a progressive blog. Of course, the rumor was floated to the Washington Times.

Gertz' story was written in July, 2004, and it states that Nicholas Kristof wrote a column in 2003 pointing out that the CIA pulled Plame back in because they suspected her cover was compromised by Aldrich Ames:

Bill Gertz wrote:

[Note: this was reported last year by Nick Kristof. The CIA has suspected for a long time that Aldrich Ames gave Plame's name to the Russians sometime before 1994.]

The Washington Monthly article even includes a link to an October 11, 2003, Washington Monthly article by Kevin Drum pointing out Kristof's 2003 column, and linking to it.

0 Replies

NOt that that matters, because classification of identity does not vanish because of the leak. The information is still considered secret until officialy deemed otherwise, which to date I haven't seen any evidence of re: Plame.

Yet, I don't think that those who outed Plame committed treason, which has highly specific requirements.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fitzgerald's handling of this case is sure to be accorded a place in history ... most likely on the same page as District Attornies Mary Lacy of Colorado's Boulder County and Stephan Passalacqua of California's Sonoma County - both of whom gained national prominence via John Mark Karr/JonBenét Ramsey, Durham, North Carolina's District Attorney Michael Nifong - of the Duke University LaCrosse Team Rape Charge Debacle, and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti - who decided to hold OJ Simpson's murder trial in the City of LA rather than in the City of Santa Monica, which was the proper jurisdiction but which had nowhere near downtown LA's media facillities.

0 Replies

Cyclops, it does matter, because that is the likely explanation as to why Plame was working primarily a desk job in D.C. because her identity had already been compromised.

And also explain why the CIA itself confirmed Plame's identity to Novak? Perhaps the CIA guy should be prosecuted?

To replow old ground, there are several hurdles to make this outing a crime, and at least a couple of them have never been established. It is a long ways from being a crime. Libby is suffering from a stupid procedural crime, that of perjury in an investigation into a crime that is not a crime. An absolute joke.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

timber, Put on your thinking hat; that Plame was even revealed to the world is the "crime." Members of the CIA said as much. Not that it has any "legal" bearing - yet.

That there are no charges pertaining to any underlying crime is a fact. That in the opinion of the authors of the IIPA there is no underlying crime is a fact. That there was a "leak" - and all which depends from that supposition - is matter of conjecture.

Quote:

You're trying to defend the exposure of one of our CIA agents to the world. If you can't see that as wrong, nothing will. Your arguments about criminal charges means nothing. [/b][/color]

Straw man c i - I'm "defending" nothing, merely keeping track of the facts.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know