CIA Leak case, take 2

[WaterMan]

I don't know how anyone can defend this behavior with a straight face.

 

Throw enough money at people and they will pass anything, like the Patriot Act.

[Azazello1313]

I still wonder if Azz has actually read the statute in question....and how hard it would be to prosecute anyone under this statute.

 

you mean this statute? especially relevant is the statutory definition of covert.

 

so yeah, it's hard to prosecute anyone for exposing a "covert" agent who, by the statute's own definition, was probably not "covert". it is also hard, one would think, to say someone violated that law when they, ya know, didn't actually violate the law.

[TheShiznit]

you mean this statute? especially relevant is the statutory definition of covert.

 

so yeah, it's hard to prosecute anyone for exposing a "covert" agent who, by the statute's own definition, was probably not "covert". it is also hard, one would think, to say someone violated that law when they, ya know, didn't actually violate the law.

 

I knew you couldn't. The CIA, Fitzgerald, and the court all agreed that Plame's status at the time was one which was Covert. Now, the part....and I know this is tough...it requires fifth grade reading comprehension.....the part which is tough is that the person leaking the name has to KNOWINGLY do so with the INTENT of outing a COVERT agent. Obviously, Armitage didn't know she was covert. The people who did know were the CIA, the President,and possibly the Vice President...depending on which meetings he attended...along with Rove. However, Fitzgerald cannot prove that any of these principles KNEW that Plame was covert when they leaked her name to the media.

 

Now, could it be more possible you will misinterpret another post?

Edited June 10, 2008 by TheShiznit

[Azazello1313]

As Fitzgerald himself noted, it was Libby's obstruction of justice which prevented him from pursuing further charges against those involved.

 

that is a silly argument if fitzgerald indeed made it. in order to prosecute libby's obstruction, he had to know and demonstrate in court the truth libby was obstructing. libby's obstruction was lying about when he talked to certain people and what was said to cover his own ass. his lies were proven to be lies by the testimony of other people, who established what actually happened. so which facts are libby's lies about what he said to matt cooper still obscuring?

 

For political retaliation purposes, members of the White House knowingly conspired to leak information on an undercover agent to try discredit her husband.

 

and they sent the anti-war, anti-cheney undersecretary of state richard armitage to do the dirty work with an offhand comment to bob woodward. wait...that doesn't quite fit the "narrative", does it?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

that is a silly argument if fitzgerald indeed made it. in order to prosecute libby's obstruction, he had to know and demonstrate in court the truth libby was obstructing. libby's obstruction was lying about when he talked to certain people and what was said to cover his own ass. his lies were proven to be lies by the testimony of other people, who established what actually happened. so which facts are libby's lies about what he said to matt cooper still obscuring?

 

 

 

and they sent the anti-war, anti-cheney undersecretary of state richard armitage to do the dirty work with an offhand comment to bob woodward. wait...that doesn't quite fit the "narrative", does it?

 

Armitage was not the only leak. You continue to ignore the other leaks.

[TheShiznit]

Armitage was not the only leak. You continue to ignore the other leaks.

 

No...he continues to ignore the meaning of the word KNOWINGLY.

[Azazello1313]

The CIA, Fitzgerald, and the court all agreed that Plame's status at the time was one which was Covert.

 

that is false. the CIA never offered a legal opinion whether her identity was covert per the relevant criminal statute, despite being asked to do so repeatedly -- they may have been treating her identity as classified, but that doesn't mean she meets the specific criteria of the statute. the court never ruled on it either (I would ask you to provide a link if you want to assert otherwise). you are just making stuff up again.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806020002?f=s_search

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

that is false. the CIA never offered a legal opinion whether her identity was covert per the relevant criminal statute, despite being asked to do so repeatedly -- they may have been treating her identity as classified, but that doesn't mean she meets the specific criteria of the statute. the court never ruled on it either (I would ask you to provide a link if you want to assert otherwise). you are just making stuff up again.

 

Before even reading your link, you're referencing Robert Novak in this?

[Azazello1313]

Armitage was not the only leak. You continue to ignore the other leaks.

 

he was the first leak, and subsequent leakers (like rove) were only confirming what armitage had already told reporters.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

he was the first leak, and subsequent leakers (like rove) were only confirming what armitage had already told reporters.

 

Not true. Read my link above.

 

In fact, Novak has identified both Rove and Armitage as the sources for his July 14, 2003, column, and Cooper named Rove as his source who identified Plame as an employee of the CIA during a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003. In Cooper's first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, he identified Libby as his confirming source. Miller testified on January 30, 2007, that Libby disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., on July 8, 2003, the same day as the meeting in which Armitage disclosed Plame's employment to Novak -- and six days before Novak's July 14 column was published. A Justice Department investigation into the leaks resulted in Libby's indictment and conviction on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators that he had learned Plame's identity from NBC's Tim Russert, rather than other Bush administration insiders. Libby's 30-month prison sentence was commuted by President Bush on July 2, 2007.

Edited June 10, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[TheShiznit]

For those who lack all sorts of reasoning and reading skills:

 

 

 

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

 

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

 

By Joel Seidman

Producer

NBC News

updated 3:24 p.m. CT, Tues., May. 29, 2007

 

WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

 

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

 

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

 

Undercover travel

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

 

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

 

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

 

Criminal prosecution beat national security

After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.

 

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."

 

The CIA has not divulged any other details of the nature of Plame's cover or the methods employed by the CIA to protect her cover nor the details of her classified intelligence activities. Plame resigned from the CIA in December 2005.

 

Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson have filed a lawsuit against four current or former top Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career at the CIA.

.....

.....

.....

.....

 

No leak charges

Several administration officials, including Libby, former State Department official Richard Armitage and Bush advisor Karl Rove, disclosed Plame's identity to reporters.

 

No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.

 

So.....Azz...should I make all the pertinent parts bold...or do you wish to continue your fruitless attempt at defending the indefensible?

[Randall]

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL POST

 

Link to Story

 

 

 

So, I imagine that McClellan will get up there and waffle and dodge like the good old days, despite the fact that he just wrote a book about all this. But there is that possibility that he puts a few more facts out there and the American people get another conviction, and Bush might have to pardon someone else.

 

And some of you thought this was over with Libby.

 

 

 

 

Can Bush pre-emptively pardon? After January 20 his pardon power is over.

[H8tank]

He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.

 

I really don't know what you people are trying to cling too?

 

This seems pretty easy.

[TheShiznit]

I really don't know what you people are trying to cling too?

 

This seems pretty easy.

 

I agree with you here H8....this is a dead issue....there is really nothing new McClellan could add to anything. Unless he can produce tangible proof that Rove, Libby, and Cheney had prior knowledge of Plame's covert status...there is nothing that could be learned here.

 

Should the law be made stricter to say you cannot purposely disclose the identity of any CIA employee ever....I would stipulate that should be the law anyway.

[WaterMan]

Can Bush pre-emptively pardon? After January 20 his pardon power is over.

 

It's not his power, it's the people who own him - their power. The same people that own McCain and Obama.

Edited June 10, 2008 by WaterMan

[Azazello1313]

For those who lack all sorts of reasoning and reading skills:

 

 

 

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

 

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

 

By Joel Seidman

Producer

NBC News

updated 3:24 p.m. CT, Tues., May. 29, 2007

 

 

 

So.....Azz...should I make all the pertinent parts bold...or do you wish to continue your fruitless attempt at defending the indefensible?

 

oh this is f*cking tiresome. yes, fitzgerald filed a sentencing brief arguing that she was "covert". here is a copy of it. notice he DOESN'T EVEN MENTION the statutory definition of covert under the intelligence identities protection act, or try to argue that she met that definition. and if he never even made that argument, the court certainly couldn't agree with him (still waiting for your link on that one).

 

this is a stupid argument to have, especially with someone who can't read and makes chit up. the only thing left I care to say is that the left's narrative on this issue is just so silly -- that the administration set out to "punish" wilson by putting his wife in danger. that is just not what happened. wilson came out claiming that the vice president sent him on this mission to niger, and that was false. the people who were responding to that claim, wanted to show that cheney had nothing to do with that "mission", that it was concocted by wilson and wilson's own wife, who had a desk job at langley, in order to specifically discredit the adminstration. the last thing anyone thought of her as was some covert operative in enemy territory, she was just "the person who actually sent wilson to niger", and yeah the fact that she was his wife had some nice nepotistic ring so they wanted to emphasise that. "wilson is irrelevant, and this is the reason why". all well and good, typical washington tit for tat, the only thing they neglected to notice is that she still had undercover field status at the CIA from her work years ago, and that saying anything about her could have some negative consequences. they screwed up, no doubt, and should face any relevant consequences for failing to safeguard sensitive information that was intrusted to them. but was it some sinister plot to attack their political enemies? that is where it gets silly. armitage et al were just trying to set the record straight with respect to wilson's claim that he was in niger at cheney's behest. their sin is one of sloppy omission, rather than sinister commission.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Azazello1313

[TheShiznit]

oh this is f*cking tiresome. yes, fitzgerald filed a sentencing brief arguing that she was "covert". here is a copy of it. notice he DOESN'T EVEN MENTION the statutory definition of covert under the intelligence identities protection act, or try to argue that she met that definition. and if he never even made that argument, the court certainly couldn't agree with him (still waiting for your link on that one).

 

this is a stupid argument to have, especially with someone who can't read and makes chit up. the only thing left I care to say is that the left's narrative on this issue is just so silly -- that the administration set out to "punish" wilson by putting his wife in danger. that is just not what happened. wilson came out claiming that the vice president sent him on this mission to niger, and that was false. the people who were responding to that claim, wanted to show that cheney had nothing to do with that "mission", that it was concocted by wilson and wilson's own wife, who had a desk job at langley, in order to specifically discredit the adminstration. the last thing anyone thought of her as was some covert operative in enemy territory, she was just "the person who actually sent wilson to niger", and yeah the fact that she was his wife had some nice nepotistic ring so they wanted to emphasise that. "wilson is irrelevant, and this is the reason why". all well and good, typical washington tit for tat, the only thing they neglected to notice is that she still had undercover field status at the CIA from her work years ago, and that saying anything about her could have some negative consequences. they screwed up, no doubt, and should face any relevant consequences for failing to safeguard sensitive information that was intrusted to them. but was it some sinister plot to attack their political enemies? that is where it gets silly. armitage et al were just trying to set the record straight with respect to wilson's claim that he was in niger at cheney's behest. their sin is one of sloppy omission, rather than sinister commission.

 

So, Fitzgerald was saying she was covert because he wanted too....oh yeah right. It is stated within the article she was covert....read it. He was the Attorney General....in charge of determining whether he status met that of covert status. It was his decision...and it was confirmed by the CIA...you refuse to read. In the end, you and I agree McClellan testifying achieves nothing....but you continue to make up facts not in evidence. The only reason this is a stupid argument to have is because you lost the argument as soon as you started arguing why no one was ever prosecuted. You are wrong...admit it....or I can cut and paste all day long article and report after article and report......until you finally have your mea cupla moment.....either way....I can give a rats arse....this is too easy...really.

[Azazello1313]

So, Fitzgerald was saying she was covert because he wanted too....oh yeah right. It is stated within the article she was covert....read it. He was the Attorney General....in charge of determining whether he status met that of covert status. It was his decision

 

are you for real?

[TheShiznit]

are you for real?

 

You state she wasn't covert because of the language of the statute. The entity armed with prosecuting those who violate the statute is the Justice Department. First, Fitzgerald had to determine whether or not Plame was covert or not....he concluded she was....and said so. Now, why wasn't someone prosecuted if she was found to be covert? Because he could not prove that anyone KNOWINGLY leaked her name as a covert CIA agent. They may have not known she was covert....and without admissions or e-mails or something in writing.....there is not way to prosecute anyone. Again....I get back to the go read and educate yourself argument I have been making.

[Azazello1313]

can someone please tell me how the f*ck you are supposed to argue with someone who believes that patrick fitzgerald is the attorney general who has the final determination over interpretation of the law? TIA.

[WaterMan]

Now, why wasn't someone prosecuted if she was found to be covert?

 

They know Bush will pardon whoever, so it's just a waste of time.

[WaterMan]

can someone please tell me how the f*ck you are supposed to argue with someone who believes that patrick fitzgerald is the attorney general who has the final determination over interpretation of the law? TIA.

 

New U.S. attorney general may decide fate of suspects in Escobedo slayings

By Derek Simmonsen (Contact)

Monday, September 3, 2007

 

PORT ST. LUCIE — The decision whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty in the case of a family of four slain on Florida’s Turnpike last year in Port St. Lucie will depend in part on who becomes the next Attorney General of the United States.

 

With the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last week, how the federal death penalty will be applied in the future remains unknown, said Douglas A. Berman, a professor with Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law who has studied the death penalty. The Attorney General has the final say in federal death penalty cases.

 

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/sep/03/new...ate-suspects-e/

[westvirginia]

 

This is like watching a tennis match, only not boring.

 

It seems to me that neither side has enough facts to totally prove thier case, and both sides have political motivations. Methinks yer both just

[Azazello1313]

watertard to the rescue!