8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 12:47 pm
Yeah, the Wilsons were setting up the WH because they knew that the WH was going to put false information in the speech and they could then tell the public about it.

Great plan and it worked. And even better, the WH then started a campaign to discredit Wilson which allowed for the CIA, at the behest of Wilson, to request an official inquiry into who leaked the name of a CIA agent. Then to top it all off, the Wilson's have managed to get several people in the WH and the media to all lie about who told them that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Then of course the Secret Service was kind enough to hide all those phone calls and visits Wilson made to the WH to drug WH employees and convince them to go along with his evil plans. Meanwhile the FBI has willingly gone along too. Then there are those notebooks that the reporters kept that Wilson changed without their knowledge.

I want to know why Wilson hasn't just taken over the world since he is such an evil genius and has such access and abilities. Wilson can tell the future and change people's memories. Yeah. An evil genius for sure but such small minded plans if his only goal is to get Bush administration officials into court for outing his wife.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 12:51 pm
parados, As you have detailed why people believe in fiction as fact boggles the mind. They toss out logic and common sense to continue believing that Wilson was the culprit behind it all. There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 08:09 pm
Quote:
February 01, 2007, 8:05 a.m.

The Libby Trial: Fitzgerald's Weakest Link
The "Cooper Counts" are heard in court.

By Byron York
    [size=14]had somethine and about the wilson thing and not sure if it's ever[/size]
    During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, Libby told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but Libby did not know if this was true. As defendant Libby well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that: Libby did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this was true; rather, Libby confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA…
The evidence to support Count Three is Cooper's story. It was covered quickly on Wednesday, when Cooper answered "No" to Fitzgerald's question about whether Libby had indicated that he heard about Mrs. Wilson from reporters. That was it.

Count Five accuses Libby of committing perjury when he appeared before Fitzgerald's grand jury on March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004. It is essentially the same charge as Count Three, based on the same July 12, 2003 conversation. It quotes Libby telling the grand jury, "I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was - all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters."

That was false, Count Five alleges, because Cooper says so:
    In truth and fact, as Libby well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise Cooper or other reporters that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true…
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 08:22 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
parados, As you have detailed why people believe in fiction as fact boggles the mind. They toss out logic and common sense to continue believing that Wilson was the culprit behind it all. There's no cure for stupid.


I think Mr. Fitzgerald, as heroic as he would like to aspire to be in order to make a name for himself by ensnaring somebody in his path, tossed out logic a long time ago.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 11:24 pm
No cure for stupid, indeed!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 10:46 am
It is amazing how the right has fell in line with the Bush PR machine. Had the Clinton WH exposed a covert CIA agent, the right would have marched on the WH with torches and pitchforks. There is blatant hypocrisy among the right.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 10:54 am
An FBI agent testified that Libby told her that he learned about Plame from Cheney.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003540604
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 11:07 am
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
parados, As you have detailed why people believe in fiction as fact boggles the mind. They toss out logic and common sense to continue believing that Wilson was the culprit behind it all. There's no cure for stupid.


I think Mr. Fitzgerald, as heroic as he would like to aspire to be in order to make a name for himself by ensnaring somebody in his path, tossed out logic a long time ago.


What? Fitzgerald already has made a name for himself. You do know that's how he got this assignment, right?

The theories of why Fitz is actually doing his job are getting more and more out there by the post...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 11:12 am
Advocate wrote:
It is amazing how the right has fell in line with the Bush PR machine. Had the Clinton WH exposed a covert CIA agent, the right would have marched on the WH with torches and pitchforks. There is blatant hypocrisy among the right.


There is hypocrisy on both sides. More often, though, the hypocrisy is over there on the left.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 01:35 pm
Would you please give me some examples of hypocrisy on the left.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 02:07 pm
Advocate wrote:
Would you please give me some examples of hypocrisy on the left.


Laughing Good one.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 02:43 pm
Advocate, when a Republican is involved in revealing the identity of an employee of the CIA that probably was not covert by the way, it is worthy of hanging, but Democratic congressmen leaking national security classified secrets are merely "whistleblowers," and Sandy Berger is only guilty of "sloppiness" when he smuggled classified information out of the archives and shoved them under a construction trailer. Isn't that right? No hypocrisy, huh?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 02:46 pm
Quote:
employee of the CIA that probably was not covert by the way


Testimony in the Libby trial has shown that she was in fact covert, and her identity was confidential information. Just so ya know

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 02:54 pm
I haven't seen any big defense of Berger by the left. I haven't seen where Leahy has leaked. Any specifics?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 02:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
employee of the CIA that probably was not covert by the way


Testimony in the Libby trial has shown that she was in fact covert, and her identity was confidential information. Just so ya know

Cycloptichorn


Who has testified to that effect, and what was the substance of their testimony?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:24 pm
The testimony was by FBI agent Deborah Bond, and her statement -

Quote:
DB I'm the current case agent. I took over a year ago, when Jack Eckenrode retired.

Z What this was about.

DB The possible unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity to the media.

Z Determine in this investigation.

DB How it happened her name and employment got to the media. Trying to find out identities of those participating in disclosing her identity to media,whether they knew it was classified, what their intent was on disclosing information.


Bond was tasked with finding out whether or not people intentionally passed along this classified information, namely, Plame's name and employment. The FBI was under no illusions as to whether or not Plame had covert status; the only question was who leaked it and whether or not their crime could be charged under the IIPA.

Of course, you knew this the entire time and didn't need someone to confirm it to you, yet denied it because you don't want it to be true.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 04:33 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The testimony was by FBI agent Deborah Bond, and her statement -

Quote:
DB I'm the current case agent. I took over a year ago, when Jack Eckenrode retired.

Z What this was about.

DB The possible unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity to the media.

Z Determine in this investigation.

DB How it happened her name and employment got to the media. Trying to find out identities of those participating in disclosing her identity to media,whether they knew it was classified, what their intent was on disclosing information.


Bond was tasked with finding out whether or not people intentionally passed along this classified information, namely, Plame's name and employment. The FBI was under no illusions as to whether or not Plame had covert status; the only question was who leaked it and whether or not their crime could be charged under the IIPA.

Of course, you knew this the entire time and didn't need someone to confirm it to you, yet denied it because you don't want it to be true.

Cycloptichorn


<sigh>

You said:

Cyclops wrote:
Testimony in the Libby trial has shown that she was in fact covert, and her identity was confidential information. Just so ya know


... to which I replied:

Tico wrote:
Who has testified to that effect, and what was the substance of their testimony?


And you responded with a summary of Deborah Bond's testimony that said NOTHING about whether Plame was "covert."

And while she doesn't -- if this summary of her testimony is any indication -- testify about the truth of that assertion, she certainly doesn't provide any basis for that claim, or for the truth of whether Plame's identify was in fact"confidential," since all she did was testify that she was investigating whether those who disclosed her identity knew if was "confidential."

Your "helpful" explanation that the FBI suffers no illusions about whether she is "covert" notwithstanding, I think I'll wait until an actual fact witness presents some testimony that could lead a jury to conclude that is reality as opposed to just a leftist's wild fantasy.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 04:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
employee of the CIA that probably was not covert by the way


Testimony in the Libby trial has shown that she was in fact covert, and her identity was confidential information. Just so ya know

Cycloptichorn

I am basing my statement on the fact that Fitzgerald has never claimed she was covert, that I am aware of, and he has so far failed to indict anyone on those charges, and if he did, it would seem apparent that Richard Armitage would be first in line as the first leaker, that is if he can prove the leaker knew for sure she was covert, and not only that, but to prove the leaker leaked intentionally. Lots of hoops to jump through, and perhaps that is why he isn't going down that road, but then why go down any road with this investigation, if not that road?

On the other hand, Wilson might have been the first leaker, we don't know do we, because he has never been questioned in this regard by Fitzgerald that I am aware of. So much for his reputation of thoroughness.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 05:36 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
employee of the CIA that probably was not covert by the way


Testimony in the Libby trial has shown that she was in fact covert, and her identity was confidential information. Just so ya know

Cycloptichorn

I am basing my statement on the fact that Fitzgerald has never claimed she was covert, that I am aware of


Just to be clear - From Fitzgerald's press conference:

Quote:
Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

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.


Quote:
and he has so far failed to indict anyone on those charges, and if he did, it would seem apparent that Richard Armitage would be first in line as the first leaker, that is if he can prove the leaker knew for sure she was covert, and not only that, but to prove the leaker leaked intentionally. Lots of hoops to jump through, and perhaps that is why he isn't going down that road, but then why go down any road with this investigation, if not that road?

On the other hand, Wilson might have been the first leaker, we don't know do we, because he has never been questioned in this regard by Fitzgerald that I am aware of. So much for his reputation of thoroughness.


It seems Fitzgerald has claimed that her identity was confidential. He may not have been able to produce evidence that she was outed according to the very strict IIPA, but he most definately asserted her covert status.

In addition - Tico too - I would like you to explain how the FBI wouldn't have known whether she was covert or not when they were investigating her outing. All it would have taken is a single phone call to determine that her status was not confidential. There is every evidence that the FBI knew her status was in fact confidential, which is exactly why they proceeded with the investigation. It is the height of mendacity to imagine otherwise.

It has never really been in doubt that her status was covert, outside the mind of right-wing partisans. The only question was whether or not whoever outed her did so in a criminal fashion under the IIPA, and whether or not investigations into this question were blocked by those who lied to investigators in order to protect themselves or others.

All this stuff about Wilson outing his own wife - who we all agree did legitimate undercover work in the past, and who could not possibly be anything but in greater danger from such an act - is past the realm of believability, sorry.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 06:01 pm
Cyclops, now you are finally getting to the heart of this. Am I wrong when I think "confidential" is not necessarily the same as "covert status?" If Fitzgerald has evidence that she was covert, then why doesn't he say so? And I would have to dig it up, but I think in another portion of his press conference in 2005, he also said he was not making any statement about her status being covert or not, which I thought was odd, because why continue an investigation if he had not yet determined that by a legal interpretation. After all, that would be his job, would it not? I quoted that part again just 2 or 3 pages ago or so.

Concerning Wilson outing his own wife, I do not think it would be that unbelievable. The man has been shown to lie. The reporter that spent time in jail had his phone number and extension in her notes, and she gave a rather lame answer when asked if she had spoken to him.
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 0.06 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 04:22:54