the last paragraph makes no sense to me. I believe the transcript of the press conference today shows that Fitzgerald was asked is she was covert - he said "classified". someone double check me.
If only he had done something minor......like steal documents from the National Archives.
This explains zero about the temper and themes of Fitz's remarks at the press conference.
"In addition, word is that Rove made some sort of presentation to Fitzgerald in the last days of the investigation that made Fitzgerald less inclined to take action against Rove. What that involved is not clear."
I know what it involved. The round table on FOX talked about it - because when it was noted by the press that Rove must be in big trouble since he was meeting with Fitz for a FOURTH time .. and the media was doing it's usual salivating. But .. it turned out that after Cooper gave his testimony to the GJ and came out and gave his little speech to the media .. Rove had immediately called Fitz and REQUESTED an opportunity to rebutt what Cooper had said.
And .. I remember sending an email to FOX about some of their other reporters saying Rove was called by Fitz to testify again .. and that wasn't true .. Rove volunteered. Finally, after 2-3 days, most of the reporters on FOX began saying Rove "requested" the 4th trip to testify.
I wonder if he could somehow cobble together a whistleblower defense? As someone else succinctly put it, a few persons in the CIA conspired to send Wilson to Africa in an unusual manner(and remember his not signing a confidentiality clause), he starts spreading misleading info to undermine the administration, and then the CIA tries to make it look like Chaney's office sent him. That comes close to treason. Outing VPlame was part of outing this subversive scheme.
Unfortunately, legally he's charged with lying to the grand jury, not outing her. But could not he argue that telling the truth in the GJ would be self-incriminating, and there was a greater good in outing this scheme, even if it required breaking the law? Daniel Ellsberg?
You know...i was thinking about all this..these
indictments, Mr Libbys not guilty plea, the
inevitable trial that the Dims are slathering for..
that Joe Wilson is doing a happy dance over..
as they all contemplate the show trial; they
dream of...Rove on the witness stamd,..maybe Cheney..
who knows..even Bush himself! the rhapsodise about...
and the expression: "Be careful what you wish for!"
comes to mind...Remember, everything so far, that
has been presented..has all been from a prosecutorial/persecutional POV...In the Trial
Libby, and his lawyers, will be able to present
an opposing point of view, and be able to Supeona
their *own* list of witnesses, friendly and hostile.
Does anyone, upon thinking about it, doubt that
Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame, will find themselves
being handed supeonas, and under oath in from of
a *criminal* court? That Plame's superiors(s) aren't
facing supeonas? That witnesses from Niger & the UK
may be flown in to testify as to the extent of
Wilsons "investgation", and the UK info on the
Yellowcake? That those people who knew of Plames
CIA status, her possible exposure over 5 yrs ago
to foriegn Intelligence agencies brought out??...
The connections between Wilson, Plame and numerous
"stars" in the Democrat Party? Their political
donations? The friction between the Administation
and the CIA, who are supposed to serve at the
pleasure of the President???
Yes..There are serious ramifications for those
that would attack the presidents abilty to
prosecute a war, durng a time of war.
Who Knows I thought Sandy Burgler was going to jail. Libby is somewhere between Martha Stewart and Sandy Burgler.
""Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah – yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that."
"In truth and fact, as Libby well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that: a. Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA..."
So, in point a. Fitzgerald is taking the "he said -- he said" between Russert and Libby, and deciding to believe Russert. How does he know? Is there a recording? Or is he just saying, "Hey, if I believe Russert I have an indictment; if I don't believe him, I have nothing."
In point b., he accuses Libby of lying in the statement above because Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Funny, though, Libby didn't say in that testimony that he didn't know that Plame worked for the CIA. Libby testified that *he told Russert* that he didn't know. Is lying to a reporter a crime?
Looks to me like there's no substance there.
---In another place in the indictment, Fitzgerald states flatly that "Russert did not ask Libby if Libby knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell Libby that all the reporters knew it." That sort of definitiveness has led the observers to suspect that Fitzgerald has some sort of evidence that clearly supports Russert's account of the conversation.---
This would have to be a witness or a recording. There is no evidence of a witness that I know of. Is a recording admissible?
Even if Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA when he was talking to Russert if he told Russert that he did not know that she worked their then maybe he was attempting to protect her from disclosure. When asked about it by the GJ he simply stated the conversation with Russert as he remembered it either way it is apparent that there was no crime committed since she was not covert and saying that she worked at the CIA was not a crime anyway so this whole affair is a farce. Why isn't Russert indicted since he apparently knew all along as well as other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA and it was the Press reporting that in fact outed her...
Nonsense!
From Libby's testimony.
From testimony.
"I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report."
"Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us."
What Libby is saying is that he lied to reporters. He never says he didn't know Valaries status. He simply say's that reporters were reporting this. Russert now lies and claims he didn't say this to Libby but that is simply his word against Libby. Read this Libby seems to be going out of his way to make clear that he did not take responsibility himself for this claim. Rather he attributed it to Russet. Fitz is so partisan though that he twist the denyal into Libby denying knowledge rather than Libby denying this to other reporters.
This is a real partisan hack job. Libby will not be found guilty of anything. It may even be thrown out of court before trial.What could Fitz have. Rummor is Libby's notes I doubt this strongly. Most likely Russett's notes but so what. Russett has had it in for Rove and Libby forever. His notes could hardly be trusted.
Fitz needs to be investigated for missconduct. But most of all GW need to grow some b@ll$ and defend his people for a change by a strong offence against the Dims. Kerry Hillary Bill and McDermot are easy targets. Investigate the dickens out of them and convict them.
In fact, if the grand jury wasn't cleared (or if he didnt know whether or not it was cleared) Libby was also right not to reveal any classified knowledge, meetings or conversations to them either - he would have een breaking the law to do so.
But Fitzgerald is known to be creative in his approach to dreaming up some sort of rationale to justify his indictment of someone. I think there's some column by Eric Zorn all about this. He's also known to use just plain old heavy-handedness: threatening the girlfriend and mother of two of a former employee of Rep. former Governor of Illinois, George Ryan with jail unless the former employee promised to helped them by giving them what they wanted against Ryan. There didn't seem to be too much concern that what he gave them was real, rather, that its degree of reality was its degree of usefulness.
The CIA is not a policy-making organization; it advises the Director of National Intelligence on matters of foreign intelligence, and it conducts covert actions only at the direction of the President or Director of National Intelligence.
Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.
******
A Singular Opportunity
Gaining Access to CIA's Records
Evan Thomas
Editor's Note: Mr. Evan Thomas was allowed to see CIA classified records under the historical access policy. The basic authority for this policy is Executive Order 12356 [April 1982], as implemented in HR 10-24 (c)4. Under these provisions, CIA may grant individual researchers and former Presidential appointees access to classified files, once the recipient of this access signs a secrecy agreement and agrees to allow the Agency to review his manuscript to ensure that it contains no classified information. Former DCI Robert Gates granted Mr. Thomas historical access in 1992, and directed that the CIA History Staff locate and provide records that would satisfy Mr. Thomas's research request. Mr. Thomas's manuscript was subsequently reviewed in accordance with his secrecy agreement and approved on 2 March 1995 by the Information Review Officer of the Directorate of Operations, with the concurrence of the Office of General Counsel. The views expressed by Mr. Thomas in his manuscript and in this article are his own, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of CIA or any of its components.
It is no secret that, over time, many CIA secrets leak. The most sensational stories have a way of surfacing, especially in the covert action arena where there are often many witting participants and the action has tangible consequences. In the early days, the larger, more spectacular covert actions in Indonesia and at the Bay of Pigs all were the subjects of rumors and newspaper accounts within a few months (or hours) of their occurrence. Post-Watergate Congressional investigators uncovered much of what remained secret: the assassination plots, drug experiments, and mail-opening campaigns. I sometimes had the feeling reading the Church Committee reports that the public knows more about the inner workings of the CIA's Clandestine Service than it does about the Department of Health and Human Services.
Yet, for a variety of reasons, the CIA hangs on to the illusion of secrecy about these early operations. Sources and methods must be protected, even from many decades ago, and there is a certain tradition to consider. To some old hands like Richard Helms, secrets are forever. Thus, numerous books have reported that the Guatemala operation was codenamed PBSUCCESS. To the CIA, however, the code name remains classified. This is understandable to officials of the Directorate of Operations (DO), perhaps, but to historical researchers it seems slightly surreal. There is not a lot historians can do about it, because the operations of the CIA are largely exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This may be about to change. There is a move afoot in Congress and the Clinton administration to declassify CIA records from the early days--more than 30 years ago. But it will be a slow and cumbersome process, if my own experience is an indication.
I have had the singular opportunity of being allowed behind the veil and permitted to see all of the Clandestine Service's classified histories and some of the Agency's classified records. I believe I am the first outside historian or journalist to be granted such an opportunity. But the process I went through tells a little about the difficulty the CIA will have opening up for wider viewing. The result was satisfactory to me, and Agency officials, though encumbered by bureaucratic imperatives, showed good faith. Nonetheless, the process was complex and, at times, slightly comic.
My access was granted for a book I was working on, entitled The Very Best Men, published last year by Simon & Schuster. Several years ago, I had the idea of writing a joint biography of four men who were prominent figures running covert action in the first two decades of the Cold War. In a way, I wanted to write a sequel to The Wise Men, which I co-authored with Walter Isaacson, published in 1986. The Wise Men was the story of six statesmen who shaped the doctrine of containment in the years right after World War II. Two "wise men," George Kennan and Chip Bohlen, were close friends with Frank Wisner, the man most responsible for creating a covert action capability for the United States in the postwar era.
http://tinyurl.com/85njq
******
In fact, there is no public evidence that Valerie Wilson had the covert status required by the statute. A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information," and this person must be serving outside of the United States, or have done so in the last five years.
There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents.
******
A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information,"
******
Inside CIA Covert Chat Room
http://tinyurl.com/ax7r5
******
2001 FOI update: Government secrecy
CIA history of the 1953 Iran coup
Another highlight of the past year was The New York Times publication of the CIA's classified history of the 1953 covert action in Iran, which restored the shah to power. In the course of a FOIA lawsuit brought by the National Security Archive, the CIA claimed that no more than one sentence of this 200-page report could be declassified. But the Times obtained a leaked copy of the report and published essentially the entire document (deleting a few agents' names) on its Web site last April.
Under the congressional proposal to criminalize leaks, it may be noted, the person who delivered the classified report to The New York Times would be a felon. The CIA officials who insisted on withholding the report, on the other hand, would be guilty of no wrongdoing.
******
The CIA persuaded the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Board to uphold the classification of the 1988 budget total (even though the total from ten years later already had been declassified).
Late last year the CIA also upheld on appeal a FOIA denial of historical intelligence budget figures dating back to 1947. The agency's assertion that such information could damage national security today reflects its confidence that there are no effective checks and balances of CIA classification policy. Neither Congress nor the courts, it seems, will overturn even the most absurd classification decision
******
JULY 29, 2003
Lawmakers demand probe into outing of undercover CIA agent
Some blame leak on a White House bent on vengeance
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has demanded a criminal investigation into who exposed the wife of retired ambassador Joseph Wilson as a covert CIA agent.
In a letter last week to FBI Director William Mueller, Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the FBI should investigate “reports that two senior members of the Bush administration made the identity of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative public.”
snip
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told reporters last week that “whoever released the information regarding Mr. Wilson’s wife may have committed a felony, may have actually violated federal law. I think that it ought to be investigated.”
snip
“What happened is very dangerous to a person who may be a CIA operative,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, adding: “[The leak] came from the executive branch, in my view. Its intent is to stop other people like Joe Wilson, and I am going to insist on getting to the bottom of this any way we can.”
snip
The 1982 Intelligence Identification Act, making it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of a CIA operative, was drafted in response to Phillip Agee, a former CIA agent and publisher of the Covert Action Information Bulletin.
The newsletter, started in 1978, was famous for naming covert agents. Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), a former CIA agent, said he was not convinced anyone had violated the law by naming Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative.
“The law criminalizes identifying covert agents as a pattern of activities,” Simmons said. “The intent is to criminalize a behavior … and the routine functioning of the media would not be covered.”
snip
Goss also said that “tracking down reports of [Wilson’s] activities may be out of the purview of the [Intelligence] committee.”
But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) disagreed. He told reporters that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee would investigate the leak.
Still, some experts said that either the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee could investigate the leaks.
The Judiciary Committee drafted the 1982 law.
******
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Was Valerie Plame a 'covert' agent?
Andrew Sullivan quotes Robert Novak on the subject of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA 'operative'. Novak claims that Plame was never endangered because "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives" -- and by implication suggests that it was not improper or illegal to divulge her connection to the CIA.
The test of a 'covert agent' as defined by 50 USC Section 246 is:
(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
A plain layman's reading of the statute suggests there's no distinction drawn between spies and analysts and that Valerie Plame may qualify as a 'covert agent' under (A). Maybe some jurisprudence defines this more narrowly.
If it's any consolation to Novak, he's in the junior leagues when it comes to outing agents, covert or otherwise. A Wired article circa 2000 claimed that:
A freedom of information activist plans to publish online a classified CIA document that was pulled from The New York Times' site after newspaper officials learned it exposed the identities of Iranians involved in the 1953 U.S. and British-backed coup that overthrew Iran's elected officials. The Times used the graphic to accompany an article detailing the coup. In a technical glitch, those who visited the Times website on June 16 were able to read the names of the agents when they downloaded the graphic.
The agents, though probably old men or deceased by now, would qualify as 'covert' under (C). There's a site on the Web called Namebase which purports to list out CIA agents. Namebase identifies itself as part of Public Information Research, incorporated in Virginia, with 501(c)3 status. A domain search shows their site is registered to:
Registrant Name:Daniel Brandt
Registrant Street1:PO Box 680635
Registrant City:San Antonio
Registrant State/Province:Texas
Daniel Brandt is openly identified as a Director of Public Information Research, Namebase's parent, and seems to have nothing to hide, even though he is said to have assisted Philip Agee detail the covert operations of the CIA
September 29, 2003
CIA requests probe into leak of operative's identity
snip
According to the Post, Tenet has sent a memo to Justice with a set of questions as to whether the leak of Wilson's wife's identity violated U.S law. Experts have said the leak could be a violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for the disclosure of names and identities of intelligence agents by those who have access to classified information that identifies covert agents; and up to five years in prison for the disclosure of information by those who learn the identities of covert agents through access to classified information.
snip
A statement released yesterday by Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who requested in July that the FBI investigate the leak, said Justice is now considering whether to begin a formal investigation.
******
Sept. 29, 2003; 11:41 p.m. EDT
Novak: Wilson's Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent
The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public.
According to columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Mrs. Wilson's name in his July 14 column, sources at the CIA expressly told him she was not a spy.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives," Novak told his audience on CNN's "Crossfire."
"So what is the fuss about?" he asked, then wondered aloud, "Pure Bush-bashing?"
In fact, in a little-noticed line in the initial Washington Post report on the announcement of the CIA's request for an investigation, the paper noted that "the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."
Still, hours after Novak went public with a clarification of Mrs. Wilson's status, she was described as a "undercover agent" by former White House chief of staff David Gergen in an interview with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, and as a "covert agent" by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
Before the day started I knew Fitzgerald as well as I knew Libby which is to say not at all. The press had a slobbering lovefest over Fitzgerald. I was unimpressed. He had answers to all the questions on the tip of his tongue, but so did Bill Clinton. I did not think he was smooth. He was trying a bit too hard to sell himself and the investigation in a way which led me to believe he has some insecurity about his prosecution. The fact that it appears so clearly that Libby was lying, leads me to believe that Libby may have some kind of defense. As the indictments lay on the public record awhile, I think those who are students of such matters, may come to the conclusion that there is much less there than slobbering MSM would like us to believe. The fact that Libby told the same lie more than once to different parties leads me to believe that he has a defense. This guy by all reports is smart, he is no Craig Livingstone or Billy Dale. If Libby was in a position to tell his story for a couple of hours to a national audience with friendly questioners, he might come off looking as good as the MSM would have us believe Fitzgerald looks.
He-Said:She-Said.
Is this really what all the fuss is about?
It Is Astounding that a mans life of service and career would be gutted and devastated over this...
At the same time, Libby seems to have really blown it; he seems oblivious to the fact he was tap dancing in a minefield...
How could he be so stupid as not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Dick must be royally pissed off...meanwhile GW is busy being busy somewhere else...
SCOOTER WHO?