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

Skip to comments.

Ex-Los Alamos scientist called spy for China
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | January 17, 2003 | Bill Gertz

Posted on 01/17/2003 6:48:10 PM PST by Alpha One

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A former Energy Department intelligence chief charges in his new book that fired Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee provided sensitive weapons data to China during unreported meetings with nuclear-weapons scientists.

The FBI, however, mishandled the counterespionage investigation of Mr. Lee because the nuclear weapons designer and his wife worked as FBI informants, according to the book by Notra Trulock, Energy intelligence director from 1994 to 1998.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; doe; spies; wenholee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: Alpha One
There is a lot of speculation that Lee felt he was helping Taiwan efforts the entire time. From the very beginning, he felt his Taiwan connections were working for the Taiwan government...and only after the whole thing is in the press...does he discover that they were simply passing info onto China. It would be interesting to see if he still has any connections or chats with these Taiwanese folks today...my guess is no. He probably wised up after the entire episode and realized that a lot of folks in Taiwan are just hired Chinese agents.
21 posted on 01/17/2003 11:25:58 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
Why was Bill Richardson leading the charge against Wen Ho Lee, stating on national TV before he was even indicted that Lee was guilty?

Why was Janet Reno saying Lee was guilty and that she was going to re-try Lee after the resolution of the case?

Why simultaneously with Reno's coments was Hillary saying Lee was a victim of racism?

22 posted on 01/17/2003 11:27:58 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
I think Lee went to the People's Republic of China in 1986 and 1988, not Taiwan. Lee met with Taiwanese agents presumably here in the US in 1984 or earlier.
23 posted on 01/18/2003 12:13:54 AM PST by Alpha One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Richardson was caught in a cross-fire. On the one hand, he really wanted to be VP on the Gore ticket. Most of the heat coming at him at the time was critical of his predecessors for their handling of the case. He came on strong in response to that. I don't think he ever said Lee was guilty, although if you read my book you will see that in December 1998, Richardson was being urged by his underlings to fire Lee to show how tough Richardson was on this issue. Richardson also signed the order that justified keeping Lee in solitary in 2000. The contradictions,etc, are best explained by your last question. The clintons and gore began to worry that their handling of the case would alienate asian-americans; they wanted their cash for the elecion. Likewise, they owed the PRC big time. Just part of life in the Clinton administration.
24 posted on 01/18/2003 4:52:01 AM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alpha One
You're right, although he did make a number of trips to Taiwan as well. '86 and '88 were his two trips to Beijing. These came after he met a PRC scientist in '85 at Hilton Head that many believe became his "handler." Lee's dealings with the Taiwanese have been kept murky, but it is known that he was dealing with an Taiwanese intell agent in Washington around '82 or so. He later made several trips to Taiwan, including two in '98, neither of which were authorized by the CI office or the FBI, despite the fact that he had been the subject of a full field investigation since 1996. Los Alamos let him go without telling anyone in Washington.
25 posted on 01/18/2003 4:56:15 AM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
There was a lot of speculation, most of it put forward by media friends of the Clintons to deflect attention away from the PRC. But there is no doubt that he knew full well he was sharing information with top PRC nuclear scientists. They visited him in his hotel room in Beijing in '86 and again in '88. They hugged him when they visited Los Alamos in '94. So did China "false flag" him posing as Taiwanese? Didn't have to, Lee was more than willing to help the PRC's nuclear program without the charade.
26 posted on 01/18/2003 5:00:19 AM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alpha One
Take a look at the Author's note in the beginning of the book. It explains, hopefully, how corrupt the so-called "prepublication review" process has become. As a former government official, with high security clearances I was obliged to submit the manuscript for review. The government gets to take its bites at the apple and then threatens the author with all sorts of legal actions if he/she doesn't comply. I had a good lawyer and was mostly satisfied at the end, but there were a couple of sticking points. You have touched on one.
27 posted on 01/18/2003 5:05:00 AM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
Richardson also signed the order that justified keeping Lee in solitary in 2000.

It seems rather obvious that Lee was chosen by the Clintons as a latter day Billy Dale.

That real Chinese communist spies were visiting the White House and other places with Clinton for fundraisers, where Chinese communist military officers, among others attended and contributed, was becoming known to the public during the Clinton years.

Further Hughes, Loral, Motorola and Boeing, all very large Clinton supporters, had broken the law in giving Chinese communists information on rocket launches or multiple warhead launches and this information was becoming known.

So, deflect attention with a spy case.

28 posted on 01/18/2003 10:22:38 AM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
Hi Trulock, is your book going to be ready soon?
29 posted on 01/18/2003 10:25:08 AM PST by HighRoadToChina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
Congratulations and a huge "thank you" for all that you have done and continue to do! Hugs!
30 posted on 01/18/2003 10:27:29 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz; Alpha One
You are correct. Further insult is that certain heads of these agencies (CIA, FBI, State Department, INS...) STILL refuse to take US security matters seriously, sometimes to the point that whose side they are on is in question! Borders still open, clintonistas still sabotaging President Bush's policies... When will American safety be taken seriously?
31 posted on 01/18/2003 10:37:19 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Published and available on Amazon.com etc.
32 posted on 01/18/2003 12:20:17 PM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
With all due respect, that's an insult to Billy Dale. The FBI, etc., was ready to walk away from Lee altogether when they uncovered to their utter astonishment his nuclear files. That was just too big to cover up, but note that he wasn't prosecuted for espionage, simply mishandling classified data. Lee was no scapegoat or any of the other excuses his supporters offered up.
33 posted on 01/18/2003 12:27:36 PM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

bttt
34 posted on 01/18/2003 4:50:05 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe (God Armeth The Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
I've heard Dr. Bill Wattenberg of KGO-San Francisco, excoriate Wen Ho Lee. Dr. Wattenberg is a nuclear scientist associated with Livermore Labs. He has worked at Los Alamos as well. It is clear to anyone who understands how security is handled at top secret levels that Lee violated the most basic rules. The attempt to make excuses for his behavior is either part of a cover-up or of a totally ignorant state of mind. What is really a head-scratcher to me is how Lee found employment at such a high level given the fact that his loyalty, by his birth, is to another nation.
35 posted on 01/18/2003 5:22:54 PM PST by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; Yellow Rose of Texas; TEXOKIE; harrowup
Thanks for all you do. Seems it never ends and it's great to know there are a few folks like you out there.



Folks:Heads up.

I can hardly wait to read this one.

36 posted on 01/18/2003 6:17:47 PM PST by amom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock
What, then, are you accusing Lee of?

The Clintons accused him of being a spy, just like they accused Billy Dale of being an embezzler.

In both cases there was circumstanial evidence, or in Dale's case it should be called superficial.

The Clinton administration arrested Lee. The Clinton prosecution lied under oath to persuade the judge to put him in solitary. Bill Richardson, paragon of virtue, oversaw it all.

How do you differ from the Clinton accusations and prosecutions?

PS, I think those that have latched on to Lee are not very good at all, eg Committee of 100, 80-20. Especially with respect to the cries of racism.

37 posted on 01/18/2003 7:45:28 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I am accusing the FBI of failing to conduct a full investigation of an individual who repeatedly lied to the FBI about his contacts and interactions with PRC nuclear scientists. Who failed to disclose that he had assisted the PRC to improve their nuclear warhead simulation codes. By definition, transmitting information related to the defense of the U.S. with the intent that or with reason to believe that information will be used to the injury or the U.S. or the advantage of a foreign nation is espionage. I am accusing the FBI and the Justice Dept. of failing not just in the WH Lee, but also the Peter Lee case to pursue espionage allegations. The clintons never accused WH Lee of being a spy, only of mishandling classified information. Had they accused him of being a spy, they would have had to identify for whom. That would have opened up China and they were too much in the bag to the PRC to do that. A federal prosecutor later determined in an internal review that sufficient probable cause existed to believe that Lee was conducting clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of the PRC and that his wife was aiding, abetting, etc. That's how I differ from the Clintons, etc. Further,although I did not agree or necessarily approve of solitary confinement for Lee, what exactly did Richardson, et. al, "lie about." Lee's tapes were never recovered. The Justice Dept. offered Mrs. Lee limited immunity more than a year later for any evidence that she could provide re: the whereabouts of the tapes. And if you believe the tapes were any less than a portable classified nuclear library, were you aware that Lee's main defense witness, John Richter, recanted his testimony before Judge Parker less than six weeks later in a congressional hearing. Under oath, he told Senators that he hadn't meant to mislead the Judge, but admitted he did and then told the committee that Lee had also downloaded design information on the W88 on those tapes. He did not tell Judge Parker that when he testified on Lee's behalf. Sorry for the long reply. I hope that's clear. Happy to answer any other questions you might have.
38 posted on 01/18/2003 8:14:43 PM PST by ntrulock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Yellow Rose of Texas
post 38

39 posted on 01/18/2003 8:23:33 PM PST by amom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ntrulock; All
I am reading your book now.

I am enjoying it IMMENSELY.

I HIGHLY recommend it!!!



40 posted on 01/18/2003 8:32:30 PM PST by Registered (Be a Star, donate to FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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