Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name
New York Times ^ | April 2, 2004

Posted on 04/01/2004 9:26:46 PM PST by Shermy

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, April 1 — Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.

The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent counsel inquiries of the 1990's, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration.

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House.

The White House took the unusual step last year of specifically denying any involvement in the leak on the part of several top administration officials, including Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has repeatedly said no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Mr. Bush.

But Mr. Bush himself has said he does not know if investigators will ever be able to determine who disclosed the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, to Robert Novak, who wrote in his syndicated column last July that Ms. Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was a C.I.A. employee.

Mr. Wilson was a critic of the administration's Iraq policies. Democrats have accused the White House of leaking his wife's name in retaliation because Mr. Wilson, in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed commentary in The New York Times, disputed Mr. Bush's statement in his State of the Union address that January that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb and had sought to buy uranium in Africa.

The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said. The conflicts are said to be buttressed by documents, including memos, e-mail messages and phone records turned over by the White House.

At the same time, Mr. Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity came after someone discovered her name among classified documents circulating at the upper echelons of the White House. It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

Mr. Bush's advisers have repeatedly urged White House employees to cooperate with the inquiry, and it is unclear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has made any decisions about whether to go forward or drop the case. On Thursday, Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald in Chicago, declined to discuss the case.

Mr. McClellan said the White House was fully cooperating with the investigation, but he declined to comment on the latest developments.

Mr. Fitzgerald, who has been in charge of the case for three months, has said he is nearing completion of the inquiry, the lawyers said. Some of them have suggested that he may be facing a problem if he declines to prosecute.

Prosecutors almost never make public the details of cases in which they investigate, but bring no charges. Federal law bars prosecutors from disclosing information obtained through a grand jury, the legal vehicle Mr. Fitzgerald has used to conduct his inquiry.

But in this case, being investigated in the heat of a closely fought presidential election, Democrats have been watching carefully for any sign that the prosecutor has favored the administration. Should Mr. Fitzgerald bring the case to a close with no indictments and no public explanation of his decision not to prosecute, he would almost certainly be subject to intense criticism from Democrats.

Several lawyers said Mr. Fitzgerald could ask a judge to allow him to issue a report. Or, they said, he could seek to employ a rarely used provision of the Justice Department's guidelines for prosecutors allowing grand juries to issue reports. But those sections of the prosecutor's manual appear to relate to public officials in organized crime cases.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; cialeake; josephwilson; leakuponleak; plamegate
More leaks from an investigation into leaks
1 posted on 04/01/2004 9:26:46 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Are you just along for the ride?

Why not Donate to FR and get a real lift and help make a difference?

Mail a check to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC


2 posted on 04/01/2004 9:28:12 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Don't be a nuancy boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron; okie01; Carl/NewsMax; Kenny Bunk; Jeff Gannon; seamole
Mr. Wilson, in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed commentary in The New York Times, disputed Mr. Bush's statement in his State of the Union address that January that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb and had sought to buy uranium in Africa.

Now, that's not quite true.

3 posted on 04/01/2004 9:28:32 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself

can't find a leaker?? just charge them with something else.

wala, instant scandal. no evidence required.

INVESTIGATE CONGRESS!

4 posted on 04/01/2004 9:29:03 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; okie01
The suspicion that someone may have lied to investigators is based on contradictions between statements by various witnesses in F.B.I. interviews, the lawyers and officials said.

Who are these "lawyers and officials?" Shouldn't a new investigation be started to root them out?

can't find a leaker?? just charge them with something else.

Novak, etc. are not going to squeal or admit they made up stuff to sound more authoritative - they'll be given a pass.

officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

Hmmm...Andrea Mitchell and her pal Joe Wilson's big mouth perhaps???

5 posted on 04/01/2004 9:33:11 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
They want to charge someone in the White House. They will charge someone in the White House whether they find evidence or not. They want an anti-Bush scandal come hell or high water. They will create one if they have to, they do it all the time.
6 posted on 04/01/2004 9:35:15 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Could have predicted this was going to happen. Ahab Walsh redux.
7 posted on 04/01/2004 9:39:36 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Who is they? Isn't the prosecutor a Republican? Let's hope he is on the home team.
8 posted on 04/01/2004 9:40:04 PM PST by OneTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Well, I'm going on the theory (for now) that the first "leaker" to Novak was Richard Clarke...but Novak will never admit it. And that Novak was showing off, and did not have a "malicious" purpose.

But there's some documents floating around...


9 posted on 04/01/2004 9:40:45 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeLurker
doesn't matter if its got an R or a D by its name. Notice how they zeroed in on the White House?? There is no real evidence the 'leak' came from the White House.
10 posted on 04/01/2004 9:41:33 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
If the Democrats knew this that might explain why he became their poodle so suddenly.
11 posted on 04/01/2004 9:42:41 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I'm pretty sure there will be at least two indictments, because then the media can say "a White House [staff] under/facing/battling multiple indictments" every chance they get which comes across much more ominous as if it's some vast criminal conspiracy..
12 posted on 04/01/2004 9:45:57 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Here's a different document story...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1049592/posts

"...Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence. The newspaper goes on to say that CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the document purportedly written by a State Department official who works for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Jeff Gannon, the White House correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News declined to reveal whether he had seen the memo or had its contents described to him.

While he would not disclose his source, Gannon said, "I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration."

"For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible," Gannon added. "Washington is leaking like a cheap umbrella. Just look at what's happening over on Capitol Hill."

Gannon was referring to private Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee memos that have been leaked to various media outlets in the last few months.

Gannon's exclusive interview with Wilson focused on the many unanswered questions about the "outing" of his wife.

Gannon points out that other possibilities exist which might explain how Plame's name was revealed without the malice that Wilson believes was retribution for his decision to go public with criticism of the White House.

"When Bob Novak asked why a known partisan like Wilson would be sent on a critical mission to help the administration build its case to go to war with Iraq, the answer might have been that his wife got him the job, not realizing her identity was classified," Gannon said. "It's not as if nepotism is unheard of in Washington."

The Talon News reporter added, "Some people out there see a clandestine war going on between the White House and the CIA. It is generally perceived that a substantial amount of blame for intelligence failures that otherwise might have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has been laid at the agency's doorstep by the administration. They suggest the agency is fighting back with an allegation of a wrongdoing in the Plame matter."

13 posted on 04/01/2004 9:46:03 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; AntiGuv; writer33
Gannon said, "I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration."

"For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible," Gannon added. "Washington is leaking like a cheap umbrella. Just look at what's happening over on Capitol Hill."

Sounds like thats why they are investigating the White House.

14 posted on 04/01/2004 9:50:14 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeLurker
Isn't the prosecutor a Republican?

Patrick J. Fitzgerald has always said that he's an independent, not leaning either Republican or Democrat.

15 posted on 04/01/2004 9:53:53 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I see a clandestine war going on but it's far bigger than just the CIA, the White House, and the smattering of whiny staffers who have been cut out of the loop.
This is backed by foreigners, too.
16 posted on 04/01/2004 9:57:41 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Was Mr. Fitzgerald appointed by Bill Clinton?

Does he have ties to Daly's machine?

Just curious.

17 posted on 04/01/2004 9:57:50 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
There is no real news in the report, so one can only conclude that the NYT is firing a shot across Fitzgerald's bow, warning him about "intense criticism" of he doesn't make the Democrats happy.
18 posted on 04/01/2004 10:03:13 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa; okie01; Mitchell
I see a clandestine war going on but it's far bigger than just the CIA, the White House, and the smattering of whiny staffers who have been cut out of the loop. This is backed by foreigners, too.

Huh? You mean since 9/11 the succession of "leaks" about anything to do with Iraq, always dismissing any danger, doubting any connection, underestimating anything done by Saddam, even going so far as to plant and out and out lie in the New York Times about Vaclav Havel denyning the Prague-Atta meeting, all this wasn't the mere creation of a cabal of some well -meaning, peace loving "senior intelligence officials" but orchestrated and directed by a foreign intelligence agency that has penetrated Washington -say, France or Russia or Saudi - whose couintry or countries had much money to lose if Saddam was overthrown?

Hmmm...interesting idea...

19 posted on 04/01/2004 10:09:53 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Hmm, I forgot about this- did Ruh ever add more detail to his?

To: 1Old Pro
Today Rush said that he had inside information that he couldn't disclose right now, but when the truth comes out about the leaker, people are going to be very surprised. He then elaborated a little bit and said there were a lot of left-over CLintonistas at the State Department. Also, Rush reminded viewers that Wilson has been not only against the war in Iraq, but is/was against the no-fly zone. Wilson repeatedly claimed in recent months Iraq never had WMD. But Rush played audio of Wilson saying before the war that he (Wilson) was afraid Saddam would use WMD. LOL - the guy is a Flipper ala Howard Dean.
99 posted on 09/29/2003 12:34 PM PDT by Peach

20 posted on 04/01/2004 10:11:54 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
That was my understatement of the year... just seems like there are an awful lot of francophiles mucking about.
21 posted on 04/01/2004 10:15:05 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmericanVictory
Mr Fitzgerald was appointed by Clinton on Senator Fitzgerald's (no relation) recommendation, and the Senator selected him specifically because he didn't have ties to Illinois machine politics.
22 posted on 04/01/2004 10:15:25 PM PST by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
They want to charge someone in the White House. They will charge someone in the White House whether they find evidence or not. They want an anti-Bush scandal come hell or high water. They will create one if they have to, they do it all the time.

On Sunday, October 31st, "unnamed sources" (Clinton holdovers) in the Justice Dept. will announce that an indictment of George W. Bush is forthcoming on charges of "obstruction of justice" releated to the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA operative, in violation of Federal law. There will, of course, be absolutely no basis for this explosive charge, and it will be retraced 2 weeks later. But the New York Times and Washinton Post will carry the story on the Front Page, and the "Halloween Massacre" will cost Bush 8 points in the polls, and close margins in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico will cost him the election.

23 posted on 04/01/2004 10:16:09 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: beckett
There is no real news in the report, so one can only conclude that the NYT is firing a shot across Fitzgerald's bow, warning him about "intense criticism" of he doesn't make the Democrats happy.

Definitely that's part of the game in this article. Good eye.

And typical of these reports, they don't discuss the "intelligence officials" who leaked to Newsday in an article similar to Novak's. Maybe they aren't being investigated...they should be.

24 posted on 04/01/2004 10:18:18 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: montag813
that would cost him 80 points in the polls.
25 posted on 04/01/2004 10:19:46 PM PST by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: montag813
I would not doubt it at all.

'The Ghost & the Shadow', see my FR homepage

26 posted on 04/01/2004 10:21:31 PM PST by GeronL (Hey, I am on the internet. I have a right (cough, cough) to write stupid things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Peach
To: 1Old Pro
Today Rush said that he had inside information that he couldn't disclose right now, but when the truth comes out about the leaker, people are going to be very surprised. He then elaborated a little bit and said there were a lot of left-over CLintonistas at the State Department. Also, Rush reminded viewers that Wilson has been not only against the war in Iraq, but is/was against the no-fly zone. Wilson repeatedly claimed in recent months Iraq never had WMD. But Rush played audio of Wilson saying before the war that he (Wilson) was afraid Saddam would use WMD. LOL - the guy is a Flipper ala Howard Dean.
99 posted on 09/29/2003 12:34 PM PDT by Peach

Very interesting! Though i've never read Wilson saying there were no WMD, I think that's wrong. But otherwise, that fits our recent (for now) opinion that the first "senior administration official" who is "not a partisan gunslinger" and likes to have "long conversation(s)" with the likes of Novak could very well be Richard Clarke himself.

27 posted on 04/01/2004 10:22:51 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
You have seen this article, "Retraction Times," right?
28 posted on 04/01/2004 10:25:54 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Of course, if Rush was hinting about State Dept officials, then that wouldn't be Clarke. I didn't catch the details on what Rush said so I don't know for sure if he was really implying that it was a person at State or not.
29 posted on 04/01/2004 10:32:39 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Joe Wilson's book is due out any day now. He needs publicity.
30 posted on 04/01/2004 10:37:50 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
April 30.

Mark your calendar.
31 posted on 04/01/2004 10:39:25 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Here's another individual of interest. This guy, Ken Pollack, came out in the Plame case to crank up the hysteria :

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs. "Nocs are the holiest of holies," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. " This is real James Bond stuff. You're going overseas posing as a businessman, and if the other government finds out about you, they're probably going to shoot you. The United States has basically no way to protect you." - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/politics/05TENE.html?hp

And then he popped up to defend Clarke recently right when Clarke first came out.

But we've heard from Pollack before :

MARCH 17, 1999 : (IRAQ NEWS COMMENTS ON IRAQ, KEN POLLACK & NSC : POLLACK HAS DESCRIBED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN AS A 'FANTASY' - DOES THIS SIGNAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION CHANGE IN IRAQ POLICY?) Ken Pollack is going to be doing for the NSC? And given that he's described removing Saddam Hussein as a fantasy, does that signal the administration is no longer committed to a change in regime in Iraq? - Iraq News, 17 March 1999

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary March 17, 1999 PRESS BRIEFING BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECRETARY ADVISOR JIM STEINBERG The Briefing Room, 12:45 P.M. EST [Excerpt] Q: Jim, can you tell us -- an Iraq related question -- can you tell us what Ken Pollack is going to be doing for the NSC? And given that he's described removing Saddam Hussein as a fantasy, does that signal the administration is no longer committed to a change in regime in Iraq? STEINBERG: Let me say a couple of things. First, Ken Pollack will be coming as the Director in the -- I guess we call it the Near East and South Asia Directorate -- NESA. Ken is a very distinguished analyst of the region. He's worked the government before, he's worked in the NSC before. We're extremely excited to have him here. He's a powerful intellect and a guy who has tremendous knowledge of the region. I think, first, we very much encourage people, we bring people from both the inside and the outside to work at the NSC. We are not in a position of sort of censoring the writings that they do before or after they come in. The question is whether they have the kind of skills and background to help us do the work. The judgments about policy are the judgments that are ultimately made by the President and his foreign policy team. I also don't agree with your characterization of the particular article. I think the article analyzed some of the difficulties of the various strategies, but let me be perfectly clear that the policy that we have, which is that the only long-term solution to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is a change of regime, is very much a commitment of this administration. We've been moving forward very aggressively -- the appointment of Frank Ricciardone is just one of the important elements of what we've been doing. We've been working very closely with the groups that are outside of Iraq; we are working closely with the governments in the region and others. And I have absolutely no doubt that Ken will be a terrific asset in helping us pursue that agenda. - Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie via http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990317_in.htm.

Pollack is also on the Council on Foreign Relations:

According to Ken Pollack, deputy director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a 1998 attack called Operation Desert Fox that attacked such targets provoked Hussein to overreact and order arrests and assassinations that resulted in Shi'a uprisings.

32 posted on 04/01/2004 10:57:22 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Thanks for the info.
33 posted on 04/01/2004 11:13:23 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: piasa
dIn light of this current discussion and the fact that a Clintonista leftover from the previous administration may be responsible for the leak, I really wonder if we wouldn't be better off with the old fashioned system where the new president just cleaned house, got rid of everybody, and hired his own people. Just toss civil service out the window! However, if, God forbid, the Democraps ever got back in the White House we'd have to put up with their bozo's again.
34 posted on 04/02/2004 12:31:26 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,...for without victory there is no survival. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Nothing makes the Democrats happy, EVER. They are a professional *itching committee.
35 posted on 04/02/2004 12:45:21 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: piasa
This whole thing is just blown way out of proportion! If this woman is a specialist in "nonconvention weapons" what the hell is she doing married to an AMERICAN AMBASSADOR?? Tell me, isn't the diplomatic corp the first place you would look for a spy?? I mean, if the CIA couldn't find anyone more "covert" worthy than the Ambassador's wife, we are, indeed, in deep trouble!

Usually, when changes occur in a "covert's" life, such as marrying a high profile person (i.e. Ambassador), that person is dropped from covert ops, or they should be anyway.
36 posted on 04/02/2004 12:45:27 AM PST by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,...for without victory there is no survival. -Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
Usually, when changes occur in a "covert's" life, such as marrying a high profile person (i.e. Ambassador), that person is dropped from covert ops, or they should be anyway.

Which, as far as I can tell, was the case with Ms. Plame-Wilson. Indeed, it is open to question whether or not her employment with the CIA was truly a secret. However, it's doubtful that these issues will be contested prior to an indictment.

37 posted on 04/02/2004 1:01:08 AM PST by squidly (I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosity he excites among his opponents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I have never seen a case that is going nowhere as slowly as this one. And "nowhere" is exactly where it will end up.
38 posted on 04/02/2004 1:18:34 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: singfreedom
It's being blown out of proportion because it was about the only thing the Democrats and lefties had.

If anything critical was revealed, it wasn't her ID that was so secret. That's all small stuff. The problem may be that by bringing her into it, it exposed the front company for which she worked. That's bad because a lot of other people may have been using that front company too, and now anyone associated with the company will be seen as a spy.

39 posted on 04/02/2004 1:21:15 AM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
OHHHH They mean the Joe Wilson who works for a think tank funded by SAUDI ARABIA!!! Gotcha. ;)
40 posted on 04/02/2004 3:26:13 AM PST by adam_az (Call your state Republican party office and VOLUNTEER FOR A CAMPAIGN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.

I've stated all along they would widen the range, but I don't think it's in the direction this article states.

41 posted on 04/02/2004 6:12:02 AM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Don't forget, "peripheral to the leak" could include Wilson himself.
42 posted on 04/02/2004 6:13:54 AM PST by cyncooper ("The 'War on Terror ' is not a figure of speech")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
"Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry,"

This is the playbook from now until November. If they've got nothing, theey're forced to make it up and start an official inquiry. Repubs better grow some cajones and stop this crap. You'd never guess we were in charge. Never.

43 posted on 04/02/2004 6:42:58 AM PST by chiller (JUDGES is JOB #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I tend to agree, too. Though there is the interesting detail that according to Maureen Dowd, Wilson admitted that Plame told him she was CIA at their 'first kiss.' That might be bullshiess he's adding for color just as he added the dimestore novel atmospheric details about his trip to Niger in his op ed, but it does mean he witnessed that SHE blew her own cover. I think he knew it was a dumb thing to say to Dowd since he added something along the lines of "I had a security clearance." (As if that makes it OK for Plame to inform a guy who doesn't 'need to know' that she is CIA.) But then, he can't exactly be compelled to testify against her since he's married to her...
44 posted on 04/03/2004 9:08:26 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson