0
   

Countdown to Rove Indictments...

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 06:17 am
Tico, what is the exact law that distinguishes between classified and covert as it pertains to our discussion?

Furthermore, we don't know that Valerie Plame was not covert, we only know that so far Fitzerold has not flat out said she was covert.

I seriously doubt the CIA has your name listed as classified. What an ego you have.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:50 am
If people were vigorously prosecuted for leaking "classified" information, there would be a few senators sitting in jail right now, possibly including "leaky" Leahy and John Rockefeller just to name a couple.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 11:15 am
revel wrote:
Tico, what is the exact law that distinguishes between classified and covert as it pertains to our discussion?


The law that makes it a crime to indentionally disclose the identity of a "covert agent" is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which you cited to on the last page. That law says:

Quote:
SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.


Regarding the definition of the term "covert agent," the IIPA provides:

Quote:
SEC. 606. [50 U.S.C. 426] For the purposes of this title:

...



Thus, as you can see by the above-definition, under the IIPA, a "covert agent" is a CIA agent whose identity is "classified information," AND "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

revel wrote:
Furthermore, we don't know that Valerie Plame was not covert, we only know that so far Fitzerold has not flat out said she was covert.


Correct. Do you conclude, therefore, that she IS a "covert agent"?

revel wrote:
I seriously doubt the CIA has your name listed as classified. What an ego you have.


Well I have determined my name is listed as "classified." It appears disclosure of my name is also not a crime.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 06:17 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
revel wrote:
Tico, what is the exact law that distinguishes between classified and covert as it pertains to our discussion?


The law that makes it a crime to indentionally disclose the identity of a "covert agent" is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which you cited to on the last page. That law says:

Quote:
SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.


Regarding the definition of the term "covert agent," the IIPA provides:

Quote:
SEC. 606. [50 U.S.C. 426] For the purposes of this title:

...



Thus, as you can see by the above-definition, under the IIPA, a "covert agent" is a CIA agent whose identity is "classified information," AND "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

revel wrote:
Furthermore, we don't know that Valerie Plame was not covert, we only know that so far Fitzerold has not flat out said she was covert.


Correct. Do you conclude, therefore, that she IS a "covert agent"?

revel wrote:
I seriously doubt the CIA has your name listed as classified. What an ego you have.


Well I have determined my name is listed as "classified." It appears disclosure of my name is also not a crime.


So the thing in doubt is whether she has worked outside the US within the last five years prior to her name being disclosed?

Quote:
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.


source

It appears to me that there is strong evidence to suggest she was covert.

You are not the CIA or any other three letter intelligence agency, the analogy of you wishing to keep your name classified don't apply in this discussion.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:28 pm
I find it a bit of a stretch that Plame really did much or very covert work overseas, as it has been revealed that her cover was already blown back in the 90's. This has been written about. If her cover had already been blown, it is doubtful that the CIA would involve her in much that was super secret. At least, it would not be adviseable it would seem. And the fact that no future work was planned confirms her status as covert was perhaps marginal.

Anyway, as the article says, if Fitzgerald cannot prove Libby knew she was covert, then it looks like the case should be over. Fitzgerald, wrap it up. You are not going to make a name for yourself here. The best you can do is indict somebody about some supposed false statement concerning some vague conversation years ago? Who can remember clearly exactly what they said 1 month ago, let alone years ago? Its time to move on.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 07:29 am
I think parados is right, the thing that is in doubt is proving that libby or anyone else knowingly disclosed Plame's identity. The following is from a conservative blog with a conservative slant trying to say what Tico seems to be trying to say.

Quote:

Given that "the record omits specifics about Plame's work," Tatel based his analysis on a footnote in an August 27, 2004, affidavit submitted to the court by Fitzgerald. That document, too, was released last week. In the footnote, Fitzgerald wrote:

If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

That is the entire text upon which Tatel based his conclusion. Was Fitzgerald saying that he knew in fact that the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal Plame's identity and that she had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years? Or was he simply reciting the requirements for prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It's not entirely clear. The only fully clear part of it is that Fitzgerald had no direct evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert.


http://nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp

My question to Byron York, why would Fitzerold bother reciting the laws of the Intellegence Identies Protection Act and sayig that there is no direct evidence of Libby knowing Plame was covert if she was not covert in the place?

Furthermore, okie, Fitzerold did not seek out this appointment to prosecute and investigate this matter. The CIA recommended it and then he had to be brought in because the Justice Department had conflict of interest. He is merely doing his job as best he can.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040106.html
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 01:30 pm
Quote:
My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'

By Joe Lauria
Sunday, June 18, 2006; B02

The May 13 story on the Web site Truthout.org was explosive: Presidential adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in connection with his role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media, it blared. The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only . . . it wasn't true.

As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.

In his nine-year reporting career, Leopold has managed, despite his drug abuse and a run-in with the law, to work with such big-time news organizations as the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones Newswire and Salon. He broke some bona fide stories on the Enron scandal and the CIA leak investigation. But in every job, something always went wrong, and he got the sack. Finally, he landed at Truthout, a left-leaning Web site.

I met Leopold once, three days before his Rove story ran, to discuss his recently published memoir, "News Junkie." It seems to be an honest record of neglect and abuse by his parents, felony conviction, cocaine addiction -- and deception in the practice of journalism.

Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir. "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."

I disagree, but I felt some sympathy for the affable, seemingly vulnerable 36-year-old. Before we parted, I told him a bit about myself -- that I freelance for numerous newspapers, including the Sunday Times of London. His publicist had earlier given him my cellphone number.

Three days later, Leopold's Rove story appeared. I wrote him a congratulatory e-mail, wondering how long it would be before the establishment media caught up.

But by Monday there was no announcement. No one else published the story. The blogosphere went wild. Leopold said on the radio that he would out his unnamed sources if it turned out that they were wrong or had misled him. I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left, run by Jeralyn Merritt, a Colorado defense lawyer.

Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay [sic] Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel."

A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel. My cellphone number starts with area code 917.

I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used. Moreover, the return number the caller had given him was off from mine by one digit. Corallo had never been able to reach me to find out it wasn't I who had called. He said he knew who Leopold was but had never talked to him.

I called Leopold. He gave me a profanity-filled earful, saying that he'd spoken to Corallo four times and that Corallo had called him to denounce the story after it appeared.

When he was done, I asked: "How would Corallo have gotten my phone number, one digit off?"

"Joe, I would never, ever have done something like that," Leopold said defiantly.

Except that he has done things like that. His memoir is full of examples. He did break big stories, but he lied to get many of them. He admits lying to the lawyers for Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, making up stories to get them to spill more beans. "I was hoping to get both sides so paranoid that one was going to implicate the other," he wrote.

I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo. I can only speculate that he either was trying to get a reaction and thought Corallo would be more likely to respond to a conservative-leaning mainstream paper, or he was trying to get Corallo to acknowledge that Rove had been indicted by bluffing that the Sunday Times had confirmed the story. In fact, Corallo told me that "Joel" told him that he had Fitzgerald's spokesman on the record about the indictment. He has also said he believes Leopold made up the whole story.

Leopold still stubbornly stands by the story, claiming that something happened behind the scenes to overturn the indictment. Marc Ash, Truthout's executive director, said last week that his site will "defer to the nation's leading publications" on the Rove story, but he declared his continuing faith in Leopold.

We may never know what really happened. Most mainstream news organizations have dismissed the Leopold story as egregiously wrong. But even if he had gotten it right and scooped the world on a major story, his methods would still raise a huge question: What value does journalism have if it exposes unethical behavior unethically? Leopold seems to assume, as does much of the public, that all journalists practice deception to land a story. But that's not true. I know dozens of reporters, but Leopold is only the second one I've known (the first did it privately) to admit to doing something illegal or unethical on the job.

After reading his memoir -- and watching other journalists, such as Jayson Blair at the New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today, crash and burn for making up stories or breaking other rules of newsgathering -- I think there's something else at play here. Leopold is in too many ways a man of his times. These days it is about the reporter, not the story; the actor, not the play; the athlete, not the game. Leopold is a product of a narcissistic culture that has not stopped at journalism's door, a culture facilitated and expanded by the Internet.

In the end, whatever Jason Leopold's future, he got what he appears to be crying out for: attention.

[email protected]

Joe Lauria is a New York-based freelance writer

whose work appears in the Boston Globe, the

Sunday Times of London and other publications.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754_pf.html


"Leopold is a product of a narcissistic culture that has not stopped at journalism's door, a culture facilitated and expanded by the Internet."

Which would go nowhere without a large number of people who find innuendo preferable to facts when it fits their agenda.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 01:44 pm
Interesting...
Truthout was tripping all over themselves to report that Rove had been indicted.

Now that he hasnt,someone is blaming a "drug addicted reporter"

Does this mean that truthout doesnt have the credibility they like to claim they have?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 07:47 pm
Quote:
Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. . . .


Truth. Out.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:28 pm
revel wrote:
So the thing in doubt is whether she has worked outside the US within the last five years prior to her name being disclosed?


Yes, basically.

revel wrote:
Quote:
special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.


source

It appears to me that there is strong evidence to suggest she was covert.


I don't think so. I've discussed Judge Tatel's opinion before, and agree with Byron York in the article you cited.

Further, as okie said, I understand Plame was brought back stateside in the mid-90's because her cover was blown by Aldrich Ames. Maybe the CIA let her travel overseas following that, maybe they didn't, but it's been yet to be established that she served overseas in the relevant time period.

revel wrote:
My question to Byron York, why would Fitzerold bother reciting the laws of the Intellegence Identies Protection Act and sayig that there is no direct evidence of Libby knowing Plame was covert if she was not covert in the place?


It was just a footnote in an affidavit in which he was describing the level of proof for proving a violation of the IIPA. You -- actually, Judge Tatel -- are reading too much into it.

revel wrote:
You are not the CIA or any other three letter intelligence agency, the analogy of you wishing to keep your name classified don't apply in this discussion.


I beg to differ. If Plame wasn't covert at the time of the disclosure, it appears the fact that my name is considered "classified" by me is nearly as relevant as the fact that Plame's name is considered "classified" by the CIA.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:30 pm
revel wrote:
My question to Byron York, why would Fitzerold bother reciting the laws of the Intellegence Identies Protection Act and sayig that there is no direct evidence of Libby knowing Plame was covert if she was not covert in the place?

Furthermore, okie, Fitzerold did not seek out this appointment to prosecute and investigate this matter. The CIA recommended it and then he had to be brought in because the Justice Department had conflict of interest. He is merely doing his job as best he can.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040106.html


revel, what do you think of this statement by Fitzgerald in one of his press conferences:
"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. "
I remember him saying that and then scratching my head and thinking I thought he would at least be able to say more than that, and if not, why is he continuing this investigation? To this day, has he at any time asserted that she was covert, in any press conference or in court filings? I am not aware that he has.

The thing that really puzzles me is yes, he was requested to investigate the case, but if I were him, the first thing I would do would be to establish if a crime had been committed. The very first thing to be established would be to determine that Plame was definitely a covert agent. After years of working on this and reams of things reported about it, including his statements and court filings, has this basic premise been determined? If the status was questionable, I would simply say I've done a preliminary investigation into this and have determined there is not sufficient grounds to establish her covert status was definitive. Write a report and be done with it.

If Step 1 did indeed result in a conclusion that her status was most definitely covert and that this was made plain to the people involved, then I would go to Step 2 and investigate the people involved to find out who said what and what they knew in regard to her status. If no intentional outing by someone that definitely knew her status could not be established, same conclusion. Write a report and be done with it.

I realize Fitzgerald was appointed the job, but common sense says you need to first establish what I have outlined as Step 1, that Plame was indeed covert. After 2 or 3 years, we still have no definitive statement on that, do we? I stick to my assessment, that this investigation is a very large waste of time. If you are appointed to investigate a burglary, and after 2 or 3 years, you are still unable to stick your neck out in a press conference to assert that a burglary did indeed occur, that seems like a clear case of incompetency and a waste of everybody's time. And if Fitzgerald knows the answer to Step 1, how come he doesn't make a clearcut statement about it? And even if he does, we know for sure he is nowhere close to establishing Step 2. I think its becoming clearer every day he has no case, and he probably never did have a case.

To me, this case should not matter on which side of the political fence we reside. It should be a matter of law and common sense as to whether it can be established that a law was broken.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 05:54 am
Fitzerold said that he wasn't speaking to whether Plame was covert or not. That don't mean she wasn't covert, just that he wasn't confirming it one way or another. I think there is more evidence to suggest she was covert, you may think what you like and call it partisan if it pleases you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 07:45 am
York's claim is misleading since Tatel didn't say what he used to make his statement. The documents contain lots of redacted information that the court saw but it is not for the general public.

Quote:
The redacted pages of Judge Tatel's separate opinion contain a detailed analysis of evidence collected by the grand jury with respect to the grand jury's need for the information sought by the challenged subpoenas to reporters, the existence of alternative sources of that information, and the public interest in enforcing the subpoenas. The redacted pages make extensive reference to the identity of grand jury witnesses, the substance of their testimony, and the strategy and direction of the investigation. Because the redacted pages are replete with references to matters occurring before the grand jury, the redacted pages clearly are covered by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), as this Court previously determined.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/final_response_dow_jones_motion_unseal.pdf

All testimony to the GJ not directly related to the charges against Lobby is redacted. Any testimony to the GJ about her covert status would be redacted. Fitzgerald can't reveal GJ testimony.

You guys are whistling by the graveyard in claiming she wasn't covert.

The simple fact remains. Libby lied to the GJ. Rove lied to the GJ but changed his testimony and avoided prosecution for his lying. Libby and Rove revealed classified information and Rove gets to keep his security clearance even after his egregious violation.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:49 am
parados wrote:
York's claim is misleading since Tatel didn't say what he used to make his statement. The documents contain lots of redacted information that the court saw but it is not for the general public.

Quote:
The redacted pages of Judge Tatel's separate opinion contain a detailed analysis of evidence collected by the grand jury with respect to the grand jury's need for the information sought by the challenged subpoenas to reporters, the existence of alternative sources of that information, and the public interest in enforcing the subpoenas. The redacted pages make extensive reference to the identity of grand jury witnesses, the substance of their testimony, and the strategy and direction of the investigation. Because the redacted pages are replete with references to matters occurring before the grand jury, the redacted pages clearly are covered by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), as this Court previously determined.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/final_response_dow_jones_motion_unseal.pdf



Huh? Tatel quoted the specific language used by Fitzgerald which he relied upon to make his assertion that Fitzgerald had determined Plame was covert:

Judge Tatel wrote:
As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years


I draw your attention to the portion: "the record omits specifics about Plame's work." Tatel admits there are no specifics ... he was merely trusting Fitzgerald would not make the representations "without support."

This is the "representation" Tatel was referring to ... a footnote written by Fitzgerald in an August 27, 2004, affidavit:

Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.


It seems quite clear to me that Fitzgerald was not asserting that Plame was covert, and was only stating the level of proof required to prove a violation of the IIPA.

Quote:
You guys are whistling by the graveyard in claiming she wasn't covert.


Fitzgerald has NEVER asserted Plame was "covert" under the IIPA. There has been no determination made by anybody involved in the investigation to assert that Plame was covert. You are foolish to claim that she was, with nothing to support that belief other than your hopes and prayers.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 01:31 pm
Oh. so you have seen the redacted parts Tico and can tell us without a doubt there is no other referece by Fitzgerald to "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years"

Or are you making a guess?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 01:40 pm
parados wrote:
Oh. so you have seen the redacted parts Tico and can tell us without a doubt there is no other referece by Fitzgerald to "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years"

Or are you making a guess?


Laughing

No, it is YOU who is making the guess. I'm merely pointing that fact out.


But I'm rather certain that Tatel would not have said,
Quote:
representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.


... if he was aware of actual support apart from the direct quote of Fitzgerald in the affidavit's footnote.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 07:12 pm
He says "representations" not "a representation"....

You can read whatever you want out of it Tico. There is no way to tell if the represenations refers to the one instance unredacted or others that were redacted.

To claim it was the one instance is as much of a guess as to say there were others.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 09:55 pm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 10:40 pm
Countdown to a Rove indictment:

10-9-8-7-6-5-4....Nevermind.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 12:30 pm
This is the thread that MM falsely asserts that I said that Rove had been indicted. Of course, it is a total fabrication.

BTW there is no guarantee that Rove might not yet be indicted if he fails to continue to copoerate with Fitzgerald.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 08:54:34