Posted on 04/06/2006 1:02:57 PM PDT by SmithL
Excerpts from court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak investigation:
___
"At some point after the publication of the July 6, 2003, OpEd by Wilson, Vice President Cheney, defendant's immediate superior, expressed concerns to defendant regarding whether Mr. Wilson's trip was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife. And in considering 'context,' there was press reporting that the vice president had dispatched Mr. Wilson on the trip (which in fact was not accurate). Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson was perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism."
___
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
....and all we'd get, would be more headlines like this one:
Papers: Cheney aide says Bush OK'd leak
It's getting to where I just don't care what anyone says anymore...know what I mean, Vern?
Another article:
A 25-page version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was released in October 2002. It made clear-cut statements about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capabilities in two pages of "Key Judgments."
A copy of the document can be found here. Warning: .pdf file.
This was way before July 2003.
FWIW, I'm part of the choir.
I think you misunderstood me...I wasn't chiding you, I was just informing you and anyone else that visits this thread of what I discovered in a search this morning, hence the "FYI". They claim the leak was in July 2003, but the papers were released in Oct 2002 by Tenet. Therefore, their charges that this was a leak are bogus. I too, get tired of the MSM's rhetoric and spin : )
One thing about useful idiots and leftists: they seem to be moved by the media as though its every utterance were holy writ instead of slanderous innuendo. Or perhaps slanderous innuendo is holy writ to those who hate their opposition so rabidly.
np, thanks for the heads up...clearly! :)
WOT! I see spankalib's first tagline!
Exhibit E
Department of Justice Press Conference Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald October 28,2005
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Spokesman For Immediate Release October 28,2005
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald On the Indictment of I. Lewis Libby
October 28,2005 Washington, D.C. (2:15 p.m. EDT)
MR. FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States Attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice for Special Counsel in the CIA leak investigation. Joining me to my left is Jack Eckenrode, the Special Agency in Charge of the FBI Office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.
A few hours ago, a federal Grand jury, sitting in the District of Columbia, returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff. The Grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements. Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation with 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. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, they 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 her cover being blown was that Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th 2003.
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked with Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation. I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason. It may be fixstrating, (?????) but when investigations are conducted in secret, when investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.
So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.
Investigators do not set out to investigate a statute. They set out to gather the facts. It's critical that when investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a Grand jury, they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.
Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when a million dollars is missing from a bank and tells them just come back if you find wire fraud. If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that. That's the way this investigation was conducted.
It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown. It was known that there was a leak and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.
There's another thing about a Grand juryinvestigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information contained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public. And as fi-ustrating (????)that that may be for the public, that is important.
Because the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they are not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't. And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.
But as important as it for the Grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a Grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a Grand jury who may be under an investigation, tell the complete truth. It's especially important in the national security area.
(snip)
Now, that brings us to the fall of 2003 when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, an investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the Vice President's Chief of Staff. He's also an Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Vice President for national security affairs. The focus of the interview was what was it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it and how he learned it.
And to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story. What he told the FBI is the essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to a reporter, Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA.
And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Mathew Cooper of Time Magazine and reporter Judith Miller of The New Times.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on, on July 12th of 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true.
And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to reporters, he made clear that he did not know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and in fact he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear of that.
Later, Mr. Libby went before the Grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004, he took an oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing. He said that in fact he had learned from the Vice President earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he'd forgotten it; that he had learned the information from Mr. Russert during his phone call, he'd learned it as if it were new.
And he passed the information on to reporters, Cooper and Miller, late in week. He passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters, that he told the reporters that in fact he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another, at the long end of a chain of phone calls.
It would be a compelling story that would lead the FBI to go away, if only --(inaudible)--it is not true, according to the indictment.,
In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife. He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert and if he had, it would not have been with the time.
Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges. The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials. Let me make clear there is nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife in imparting the information to Mr. Libby.
But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas for the senior CIA officer, on around June 1 lth, from an Under Secretary of State on around June 1 lth and for the Vice President on or about June 12th.
It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that sometime prior to July 8th, he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's office. So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as Wilson's wife, working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.
In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times, Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.
It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments. And he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.
It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with a White House Press Secretary on July 7th 2003 over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday In addition to discussing with the Press Secretary on July 7th. There was also a discussion on or about July 8th, which Counsel for the Vice President was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse going on a trip. So at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert and in fact when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.
~~~~~~~~~~~
(Someone needs a professional proofreader.. now.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recent documents added to the Special Prosecutor's Site.
bttt
BUMP!
As always, thanks for the ping.
The CIA, facing criticism for its failure to pass on a key piece of information that put in doubt Iraq's purported attempts to buy uranium from Niger, said yesterday it sent a cable to the White House and other government agencies in March 2002 that said the claim had been denied by officials from the central African country.
But Bush administration officials acknowledged that the 11/2-page document did not include the conclusion of a former U.S. ambassador dispatched by the CIA to Niger the month before that documents outlining a transfer of uranium to Baghdad were not authentic. The CIA cable attributed the Niger officials' denials to an anonymous source, but failed to mention the name of the former ambassador, who was a recognized expert in Africa, or that it had sent him to Niger.
He's basically dissing everything Libby's attorneys proffer as a defense against his charges and assertions. And the press is now going nutso over what they say was Bush giving Cheney authority to declassify the National Intelligence Estimate, which Cheney allegedly passed on to Libby. The site above
has some of the newer court docs.
Thank you very much. Sure sounds like somebody had a plan to cause trouble, way back in February 2002.
"The CIA cable attributed the Niger officials' denials to an anonymous source, but failed to mention the name of the former ambassador, who was a recognized expert in Africa, or that it had sent him to Niger. "
This is most interesting that the CIA is not either able or willing to name their anonymous source... No wonder somebody needed to change the subject to "outing" a covert (cough) agent.
Indeed, witnesses in the case have testified that President Bush's senior aides, the vice president's office, the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the National Security Council had received and read a March 9, 2002, cable sent by the CIA that debunked the Niger claims.
The cable was prepared by a CIA analyst and was based on Wilson's oral report upon his return from Niger. It did not mention Wilson by name, but quoted a "CIA source" and Niger officials Wilson had questioned during his eight-day mission, who said there was absolutely no truth to the claims that Iraq had tried to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from Niger.
How much you want to be that CIA Analyst = Valerie Plame?
Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador’s [Wilson’s] home and although his wife [Plame] was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes.
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.