Was Plame covert? Now we know
The entire Fitzgerald sentencing memorandum is worth reading, but this sentence stuck out:
=== First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under therelevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity
had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press. ===
along with this one
=== Second, it is undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigationthat two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove) in addition to Mr. Libby had
disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the
sources for columnist Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed
Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including – but
not limited to – Mr. Novak. ===
Could we have another one of those 287 post discussions with input from certain parties who used to contribute here regularly on how there was "no crime", "Plame was not covert", and "Novak was the end of the investigation"? Or is the argument that Fitzgerald, with a security clearance and access to all the information from all parties including the CIA, was wrong about this?
Hey, that's it: Fitzgerald needs to be prosecuted for perjury as a result of this sentencing memorandum! That's the ticket.
sPh
~
Certain parties? You mean like the primary apologists for the scumbags, like apologist A and apologist B?
~OGD~
May 26, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it odd, OGD, how after the '06 elections, ole SARGE apparently lost the directions to TPMCafe and never showed up again? Right up to Nov. 6th he was still lecturing us on why the Democrats kept losing elections, and then poof!, he was gone right after the Democrats won the election that they were going to lose.
Seixon lost his map, too, right after a jury took a week to declare Ole Scoots guilty. But I'd be willing to bet that somewhere he is still insisting that Larry is WRONG about Plame, Democrats were behind the whole thing because they hate Bush and there really were WMDs in Iraq.
But my favorite MWN (missing wingnut) is TJKING, and the small part I may have played in his continued absence when I pointed out where he had gone wrong in his ridiculous analysis of a Pew Poll. That was on April 8th and his last post (on another thread) was April 9th. He never did acknowledge that he screwed up an analysis that was already well explained.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
May 27, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the MWN's. How empty my life is without the wit and wisdom of Sarge, the insights of Seixon, and the tactful disagreements of TJKING (such as the time he said I support terrorists because I think CODE PINK is gutsy).
I figure those guys were either paid agents of the RNC, abysmally stupid, or both.
Tom
May 27, 2007 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the CODE PINK flap TJ had with you! One can only wonder how many active synapses that leap of logic had to miss in TJ's brain before it finally came to rest on the 'therefore you support terrorists' conclusion.
But, as cscs once said, whenever he warned of pending Democrat (sic) doom, he made us think we were on the right track, instead. Now, that's useful!
Kinda odd that the fired USAs scandal has not brought fresh WN gibberish to the Cafe in order to enlighten us poor heathens.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
May 27, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they do return ignoring them drives them nuts especially TJ who writes 25 paragraph rebuttals all the time. I thought keeping him at the computer was a good way to spare the world any misery he might cause when he would walk out the door.
Tom
PS "Kinda odd that the fired USAs scandal has not brought fresh WN gibberish to the Cafe in order to enlighten us poor heathens."
I assumed they've all returned to Regents University Law School to brush up so they can compete to replace Minca Goodling (or maybe Alberto).
May 27, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a related topic, Press.TV in Iran printed an interview that Amy Goodman had with the authors of 2 new Niger forgery books.
She asked good questions and the answers were easy to follow, which is remarkable considering the cast of characters, locations and the web of lies that surrounds the issue. The claim is that the CIA received a transcribed document from the forgeries via SISMI on Feb.5, 2003. But they had been hearing about these docs and had already discarded the idea that they were real. However, Don Rumsfeld (DIA) got a copy and one week later, Feb. 12, it was sitting on Cheney's desk, although Cheney told Russert later that year that he had 'heard' about Saddam trying to get uranium, and I don't know if he showed it to his CIA briefer, when he asked about Niger and Hussein. or just said that he had 'heard' rumors to him, also.
I've always wondered if Cheney had seen the docs or not.
That's hilarious about Regent U acting as the underground hole for the 'wrong all the time' wingnuts. The bad news is...it's summer.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
May 27, 2007 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember it was obvious from day one she was covert. Otherwise the CIA never would have complained in the first place.
Tom
May 26, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
And just for a little update and general information:
It appears that the House Oversight Committee is still attempting to do their Constitutional duty in ferreting out some of the finer details ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
May 11, 2007
General Michael V. Hayden
Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505
Dear General Hayden:
On March 16, 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing to examine the public disclosure of the employment status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. Following the hearing, we asked you, in writing, to produce documents related to Ms. Wilson's testimony. To date, you have not produced those documents. We write now to again urge you to provide the requested documents to the Committee voluntarily.
On March 16, the same day as the hearing, Ranking Minority Member Tom Davis sent you a letter requesting the declassification of a February 12, 2002 memorandum from Ms. Wilson to the Deputy Chief of the Counterproliferation Policy Division (CPD) in which Ms. Wilson described the qualifications of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding mission to Niger relating to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium. (1) Portions of this memo were quoted in the unclassified version of a report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued on July 7, 2004. (2)
On March 26, Chairman Waxman sent you a letter requesting documents relating to the accuracy of testimony by an unnamed "CPD reports officer" cited in the Senate report. (3) According to ms. Wilson's testimony, information provided to the Senate by the CPD reports officer was "twisted and distorted" to support the inaccurate claim that Ms. Wilson had
- - - -
General Michael Hayden
May 11, 2007
Page 2
suggested her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for the mission (4) Ms. Wilson told the Committee that the CDP reports officer drafted a memo to correct the record, but the CIA did not allow him to send it. She also told the Committee that the officer asked to be re-interviewed by the Senate, but that the CIA also denied this request. Chairman Waxman requested the CPD reports officer's memorandum and any other records concerning Ms.Wilson's role in Ambassador Wilson's trip.
On May 3, 2007, your director of Congressional Affairs, Christopher Walker, responded to both requests by referring us to the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Mr. Walker wrote that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are "our oversight Committees," so "any further questions ... should be directed to those Committees." (5)
Mr. Walker appears not to understand the House Rules that articulate the jurisdiction of this Committee, the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives. Under the House Rules, the Oversight Committee "may conduct investigations of any matter." (6) The same rule specifically contemplates that the Oversight Committee may make "findings and recommendations" to "any other standing committee having jurisdiction over the matter involved." (7)
By the same token, the House Rule that creates the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence expressly provides that "[n]othing in this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting the authority of any other committee to study and review intelligence or intelligence-related activity" within the jurisdiction of the other Committee. (8)
We recognize that House Rule X, clause (3)(m) provides that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "shall review and study on an exclusive basis the sources and methods" of intelligence agencies. In this case, however, the Oversight Committee is not seeking to conduct oversight over the "sources and methods" of intelligence agencies. Rather, it is seeking to assess (1)whether there is any truth to the allegations that Ms. Wilson showed
- - - -
General Michael Hayden
May 11, 2007
Page 3
favoritism toward Ambassador Wilson and (2) whether the CIA interfered with the efforts of a federal employee to communicate with a congressional committee to correct distortions of the employee's statements.
We strongly urge you to reconsider the position Mr. Walker has taken. This Committee has years of experience handling classified information, and we are willing to discuss with you your views on steps the Committee should take to ensure that any classified information we are requesting receives appropriate protections. We hope you understand, however, that we cannot accept the position espoused by Mr. Walker that the Committee lacks oversight jurisdiction over the matters we are investigating.
For these reason, please provide the Committee, not later than Friday May 18, 2007, with a copy of (1) the memorandum described in Ranking Minority member Davis's March 16, 2007, letter and (2) the the memorandum and other information requested in Chairman Waxman's March 26, 2007, letter. If we have not received a satisfactory response by that date, we will begin the process of invoking compulsory process.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact one of us or David Rapallo or Jennifer Safavian of the Committee staff at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070511154657.pdf
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Now the question remains, did they receive what has been requested?
~OGD~
May 27, 2007 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate Select Committee on Pre-War Intel released Phase 2 on Friday
http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf - see page 210 -
12February2002
MEMORANDUM FOR: [Redacted]
FROM: [Valerie Wilson]
OFFICE: DO/CP[office1]
SUBJECT: Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash
The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can’t be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.
So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
May 27, 2007 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant catch, sp!
So where are our missing, but unlamented, wingnuts to explain this part of the memorandum?
(a) Was John Ashcroft really a closet DemocRAT? Or, (b) Is there another villain, like VP Coyote Cheney, who sent his Chief of Staff on this junket down the river to the big house?
In the glaringly obvious absence of wingnut explanations, I went looking for answers.
(c) None of the above. The correct answer is JOE WILSON!
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
May 27, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
In that link that seashell provided, if you'll note, at the very beginning in that original posting by Tom Maguire, he wrote:
Maybe someone should take the time and direct this jackass apologist for the scumbags to the link I posted here earlier. I'm sure not going to bother taking the time to register over there.
Of course, if someone did point out the House Oversight Committee's due diligence, that would just deflate Tom Maguire's whole complaint that "Waxman" ... "is staging partisan show trials rather than probing for the truth."
~OGD~
May 27, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
Victoria Toensing didn't know her ass from her elbow ... but we all knew that!
Now if ol' Henry Waxman can run one of his staff investigators over to the clerk's office at the District Court, he'll be able to fill in few question's as to the veracity of Ms. Wilson previous testimony before the House Oversight Committee..
Docha think?
~OGD~
May 30, 2007 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Quick update ... Mom and Dad must have taken away the computer privileges.
If anyone gives a damn, this apologist A for the scumbags apparently no longer has his personal blog up, but you can find him guest posting over here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2z7sxb .... (Note: I use preview tinyurl so as not have it linked directly to the cafe here)
~OGD~
May 30, 2007 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed 'A' over there, also. Saw no reason to disturb him or draw attention over here.
Apparently, he no longer had the 'time' to update and maintain his blog. Whatever.
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken
May 30, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink