The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/30/2005 10:58:31 AM · #26

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by louddog:
But, in order to prove he is lying about what he did, don't you have to prove he did something? I can't recall word for word conversations I had last week, last month, last year. In order to prove he lied with intent to deceive, you have to prove that he did something wrong to lie about. Don't you?

-----------------------------------------------

I just listened to Fitzgerald's press conference again, and I think he explains this reasonably well when he says the prosecutor doesn't set out to investigate whether a statute has been violated. He sets out to gather information and determine whether a crime has been committed. If money is missing from a bank, you don't investigate only wire fraud. If you find embezzlement, you charge embezzlement. In this case, he found perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice, so that's what he charged.

It's a weird case. The only crime that was committed was committed during the investigation of a crime that Fitzgerald won't even say was a crime, and won't accuse anyone of committing?

Iâ��m interested to see the results of the trial.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/30/2005 11:49:45 AM · #27

A Grand Jury is asked to return an indictment against "Joe" for, say, tax evasion. I'm Joe's best friend. The Grand Jury calls me to testify. I'm in possession of certain information that I think might hurt Joe, so I lie about it. Other witnesses reveal the truth of what I lied about. The Grand Jury subsequently declines to return an indictment against Joe.

I have still committed a crime, and I can be indicted for it. Joe's guilt or innocence is irrelevant here.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/30/2005 12:17:56 PM · #28

Originally posted by bear_music:

Yeah, I understand that.

The 5 counts all revolve around a conversation between Libby and Russert, and a conversation between Libby and Cooper.
Libby claims Russert asked him about Plame, and then told him that Plame was in the CIA and all the reporters have been talking about it. Russert said that part of the converstion did not happen. This is two of the counts.
Libby claims he told Matt Cooper, after Cooper asked him about Plame being in the CIA, said that he had heard from other reporters that Plame was in the CIA. Cooper said that Libby simply said "yeah I heard that too" after he asked Libby if he knew about Plame being in the CIA. THis is two more counts.
THe 5th count (actually count 1) is obstruction of justice and is based on the other 4 counts.
That is what this is all about.

So basically, it's one word against the other from conversations that happened over a year ago. Can you give all the details of conversations you had a year ago and match them with the other people exactly? I don't see how you can send someone to jail for 30 years based just on that, without proving he (or someone else) commited the crime you are claiming he lied about. Fitzgerald, the prosecuter, won't even say the leak was actually a crime!
I'll be very interested to the trial.

Message edited by author 2005-10-30 12:19:27.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/30/2005 12:37:02 PM · #29

Originally posted by louddog:

So basically, it's one word against the other from conversations that happened over a year ago. Can you give all the details of conversations you had a year ago and match them with the other people exactly? I don't see how you can send someone to jail for 30 years based just on that, without proving he (or someone else) commited the crime you are claiming he lied about. Fitzgerald, the prosecuter, won't even say the leak was actually a crime!
I'll be very interested to the trial.

That's my point; the legality of the leak is not an issue. Perjury is the issue here. And get one thing clear, please; I'm claiming nothing. I don't have an opinion. I don't kNOW if he lied. That's for the jusry to determine. I understand what you're saying re: all these differing memories. The jury would presumably take this into account.

Is it a "bogus indictment", a "retaliatory indictment"? Possibly. Have other, far more disturbing crimes gone unindicted in the past? Certainly. But that's neither here nor there at this point; if this is, in fact, a case of using the legal system to harass people who stepped out of line, well it's not the first time this has happened. I don't condone it (if it's true) but where we are at now is, there's going to be a trial. Hopefully the trial will reveal the truth behind some of these issues.

R.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/30/2005 12:53:49 PM · #30

Libby's own notes regarding how he received the information that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent showed that he received it from Vice President cheney's office. That's the discrepancy here as to why he's being charged with with obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements. In addition, it has been shown that Libby did not receive any of this information from Tim Russert, as he has repeatedly told the FBI investigators and the grand jury.

It's not illegal for Libby to have received the information from Cheney, nor talk about it with him, but it may be illegal for him to have talked about it with journalists. It has to be proven that Libby in fact knew Plame was undercover.

We're just at the beginning of this. More is going to come out and it's going to start with Libby, and why he's lied so far.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/30/2005 12:54:18 PM · #31

Originally posted by louddog:

The 5 counts all revolve around a conversation between Libby and Russert, and a conversation between Libby and Cooper.
Libby claims Russert asked him about Plame, and then told him that Plame was in the CIA and all the reporters have been talking about it. Russert said that part of the converstion did not happen. This is two of the counts.
Libby claims he told Matt Cooper, after Cooper asked him about Plame being in the CIA, said that he had heard from other reporters that Plame was in the CIA. Cooper said that Libby simply said "yeah I heard that too" after he asked Libby if he knew about Plame being in the CIA. THis is two more counts.
THe 5th count (actually count 1) is obstruction of justice and is based on the other 4 counts.
That is what this is all about.

So basically, it's one word against the other from conversations that happened over a year ago. Can you give all the details of conversations you had a year ago and match them with the other people exactly? I don't see how you can send someone to jail for 30 years based just on that, without proving he (or someone else) commited the crime you are claiming he lied about. Fitzgerald, the prosecuter, won't even say the leak was actually a crime!
I'll be very interested to the trial.

Well, I think you're mistaken about several things, the first being the timeline. The leaks and conversations took place in July of 2003. Libby was first interviewed by the FBI as part of Fitzgerald's investigation in October of 2003, and Libby was telling his version of the story then. So you're talking about a time lag of only three months, at the most, (not a year or more) between when the leaks happened and when Libby was first questioned about the events. I find it hard to believe that Libby's memory was so poor after only three months had elapsed and considering there was so much attention by the press and in the White House around this whole affair.

Second, you're mistaken about the charges stemming from conversations with only the two reporters. Libby had conversations with several other people in the White House wherein he specifically sought out information about Wilson and Plame, before his conversations with the reporters took place.

I think you have to look at the affair in context. To begin with, Libby was part of a group in the White House specifically tasked with selling the war, and they viewed part of their job in that context as "neutralizing" anyone with an opposing view on the war.

If you conclude that Libby lied, as the prosecutor did, then you have to ask yourself why.

Message edited by author 2005-10-30 13:02:39.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/30/2005 01:02:34 PM · #32

Cheney is the guy to be focusing on. His boss is covering up, and a conveinient escape goat is going down.

Can you say "Iraq-gate"?

10/30/2005 01:15:48 PM · #33

You will probably be hearing a lot about the White House Iraq Group which was a group of people within the Bush administration used for the purpose of marketing the war with Iraq and Hussein. Included in that group were Skooter Libby, Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, Andrew Card, Mary Matalin.

"Records and notes of White House Iraq Group activities were subpoenaed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity."
Wikipedia

Message edited by author 2005-10-30 13:17:05.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/30/2005 01:21:05 PM · #34

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Second, you're mistaken about the charges stemming from conversations with only the two reporters. Libby had conversations with several other people in the White House wherein he specifically sought out information about Wilson and Plame, before his conversations with the reporters took place.

Have you read the charges? He is not being charged with how/why he got the information or how he claims he got the information. The 22 pages details that he did know all about Plame prior to talking to the press, but they do not accuse him of telling the press this information and they do not accuse him of lying about how he got the information (unless I'm reading it wrong, I'm not a lawyer so I could be).

And, I am not saying he is guilty or innocent. I just think the charges brought against him after nearly 2 years of investigating are very insignificant and questionable. I agree with Bear, much worse has been done without charges.

We'll see what happens.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/30/2005 02:44:50 PM · #35

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Second, you're mistaken about the charges stemming from conversations with only the two reporters. Libby had conversations with several other people in the White House wherein he specifically sought out information about Wilson and Plame, before his conversations with the reporters took place.

Have you read the charges? He is not being charged with how/why he got the information or how he claims he got the information. The 22 pages details that he did know all about Plame prior to talking to the press, but they do not accuse him of telling the press this information and they do not accuse him of lying about how he got the information (unless I'm reading it wrong, I'm not a lawyer so I could be).

And, I am not saying he is guilty or innocent. I just think the charges brought against him after nearly 2 years of investigating are very insignificant and questionable. I agree with Bear, much worse has been done without charges.

We'll see what happens.

lol! Yes, I read the charges. But apparently I'm not getting my point across, and apparently neither did bear or Olyuzi or MadMordegon or GeneralE get the point across. I think we've all said the same thing and addressed your point in various ways, so I'll drop it.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/30/2005 03:04:33 PM · #36

You know, President Bush said he wanted to find out who broke Ms. Plame's cover. Presumably he asked everyone who worked at the White House to tell him if they were responsible (if not, why not?). Now, either Mr. Libby lied to the President, in which case I think most people agree he's "done something wrong," or else he told Mr. Bush the truth, in which case it could only be concluded that the President has lied to the rest of the country.

I assume that Mr. Libby has been chosen as the most expendable and yet high enough official to fall on his sword and take the rap for the entire gang. I mean ...

1. White House asserts Iraq wants uranium from Niger, based on forged documents
2. CIA sends former Ambassador Wilson to Niger (without the involvement of Ms. Plame!) -- he finds out that the claim is bogus and reports such
3. Knowing the claim is bogus (because of Mr. Wilson's report) the President still includes the claim in the State of the Union Address
4. Mr. Wilson published an Op-Ed essay saying the President lied to the Congress in the State of the Union Address
5. Mr. Wilson's wife's cover as a CIA operative is leaked to the press by an assistant to the President (Mr. Libby had more than one job title)

No way Mr. Libby thought up and executed this whole plan by himself. And if his bosses didn't know what he was up to, why not? What kind of lax business practices prevail there anyway?

Regardless of whether every provision of an obscure and technical statute has been broken, surely this is morally reprehensible behavior and a violation of the public trust to which these people swore an oath. Do you prefer to make your judgement about the character of these folks based on legal hairsplitting, or on the obviously anti-democratic (if not technically illegal) actions of the major players?

Clinton lied to cover up screwing an intern, I believe Mr. Bush has lied to lie to cover screwing the whole country. It was worth spending millions to investigate and impeach Mr. Clinton over his private peccadillo -- why should Mr. Bush avoid scrutiny when it's clear he lied to commit the country to war?

Message edited by author 2005-10-30 15:07:49.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/30/2005 05:39:28 PM · #37

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I understand what he is charged of, and I understand it is a crime. I also understand what most everyone is saying and agree with a lot of it. If they can prove he lied to the Grand Jury, he'll get what he deserves. I have no problem with that.

But, compared to what the original intent of the investigation was and compared to what he is being accused of in the press, what he is actually charged with is really small potatos that carries a possible 30 year prison sentence. Oddly, the crime of outing a CIA agent has a max sentence of 10 years.

THink about it. What he said (no matter who's story you believe) to Tim Russert or Matt Cooper was not a crime (since there are no charges on it). The only law that was broken is that Libby's story does not match Cooper's and Russert's story exactly. You would think that if they busted him in a lie, they would have proof he did something wrong (other then the lie). They are charging him with lying about something that wasn't even a crime.

SO, yes I get everyone's point. I just think investigating for 22 months and to only come up with this is really fishy.

We'll see what happens.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/30/2005 06:07:27 PM · #38

Dog,

It's more like this is the only foot they can get in the door. The White House isn't letting them any further in. They can't prove any of that other stuff because executive privilege and national security, once again, are being used to cover up something. The White House is apparently smart enough to try to defuse all this by throwing a bone to the pack. Will it work? Is this the end of it? Stay tuned...

R.

Message edited by author 2005-10-30 18:07:38.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/30/2005 07:51:19 PM · #39

Originally posted by louddog:

SO, yes I get everyone's point. I just think investigating for 22 months and to only come up with this is really fishy.

We'll see what happens.

Perhaps if some witnesses had told the truth, we'd have "come up with more." That's what's scary about the whole thing -- it seems obvious to (almost everyone) that there's something being covered up -- if certain government employees were more forthcoming (let's see what Mr. Cheney says on the stand, under oath) we'd most likely be appalled.

10/30/2005 08:20:38 PM · #40

Originally posted by louddog:

... Oddly, the crime of outing a CIA agent has a max sentence of 10 years.

I think you are correct here. Perhaps, should it be proven that he illegally leaked Plame's name, get a sentence equal to 10 years for every undercover CIA agent that he's put in jeapordy.

Originally posted by louddog:

THink about it. What he said (no matter who's story you believe) to Tim Russert or Matt Cooper was not a crime (since there are no charges on it). The only law that was broken is that Libby's story does not match Cooper's and Russert's story exactly. You would think that if they busted him in a lie, they would have proof he did something wrong (other then the lie). They are charging him with lying about something that wasn't even a crime.

I think his (Scooter's) notes (written proof) show that he got the identity of Valerie Plame from Cheney's office, so it's not about his word against Russert's or Cooper's. Libby never told the grand jury about this, nor did he tell the FBI investigators. This is the discrepency and why he's being charged with these five crimes. It appears as though he's obstructed justice.

He not only withheld the information about where he got Valerie Plames name from, but he lied in telling the investigators and grand jury that he got her name in the form of gossip from journalists, which, according to Fitzgerald, has already been proven to be false.

Yes, we will see what happens.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/30/2005 08:25:43 PM · #41

The thirty years Mr. Libby is facing is for all five alleged counts combined. No single one of those counts carries a maximum sentence of more than ten years.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/30/2005 11:08:46 PM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

Look at the Plame affair in which Libby was just indicted. First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife. Second, everyone knows that she was NOT an undercover operative of the CIA. SO, even if her name and employer WERE revealed, no law was broken. BUT, at the time, it was not evident that she was not an undercover operative.

For those who missed 60 Minutes tonight, I thought I'd post a link to the transcript of the story about the outing of Valerie Plame, for anyone who still believes that she was "NOT an undercover operative of the CIA." But first some excerpts:

----------------------------------------------------------

Valerie Plame was also exposed as a â��NOC,â�� an agent working under non-official cover. That means she wasnâ��t attached to a U.S. Embassy or any other government agency when she worked overseas, which would have provided her protection if she was caught spying. In other words, she had no diplomatic immunity.

Working overseas as an NOC, without official cover, was a dangerous assignment, says Marcinkowski. â��With diplomatic immunity, the worst that can happen is you get kicked out of the country. You don't have that kind of a protection when you're a NOC. You're out there, what they would call naked.â��

â��Out thereâ�� like Hugh Redmond, a NOC who was caught spying in Shanghai in 1951 and died after 19 years in a Chinese prison. To this day, the CIA denies he was an agent.

â��We give our most sensitive cases to those officers serving under non-official cover,â�� explains Melissa Mahle, who spent 14 years in the Middle East as a covert CIA operative maintaining a series of fictitious â��legends,â�� or cover stories, created by her superiors.

â��I conducted espionage. I went overseas, I recruited agents,â�� says Mahle.

She left the agency three years ago, and recently struck up a friendship with a woman whose career ran parallel to her own: Valerie Plame Wilson.

â��People have said, â��Oh, well, Valerie wasn't serving in a sensitive position. So it's not really that serious.â�� Well, I would say that's a very fallacious way of looking at this because a cover is for a clandestine officer can be different things at different times. We change cover. We modify cover based on how we need it,â�� says Mahle. â��If you start to unravel one part of that, you can unravel the whole thing.â��

Mahle says Valerie was working on important national security issues, like keeping tabs on nuclear material and the worldâ��s top nuclear scientists. â��She is an expert on weapons of mass destruction. These are the kind of people that don't grow on trees.â��

â��I get the impression you get really angry about what happened,â�� Bradley asked Melissa Mahle.

â��Of course I do, because we're talking about lives and we're talking about capabilities. We do our work. We risk our own lives. We risk lives of our agents in order to protect our country. And when something like this happens, it cuts to the very core of what we do. We're not being undermined by the North Koreans. We're not being undermined by the Russians. We're being undermined by officials in our own government. That I find galling,â�� Mahle said.

--------------------------------------------------------

Read the full transcript here.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/31/2005 10:05:08 AM · #43

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Because it was brought up in another in which false and unbacked statements were made about it, I thought it could and should use its own thread.

Just joining this fray with the usual type of question - to wit: What false and unbacked statements were made about the Grand Jury CIA Investigation in another thread?
While you are certainly entitled to make the allegation, you should also be prepared to support that allegation. Or, if we were a Grand Jury, would YOU be open to indictment for the very things that Mr. Libby was indicted for ( i.e. making false statements, and/or perjury )?
Apparently, he did not have notes that supported his statements. Do you?

MadMordegon addresses your question in his first post in this thread.

He addresses them, yes, but not truthfully. Since the quote that he includes and refers to as "the bad post from another thread" is quoting ME, that gives me the right to challenge his charge, that I made false and unbacked statements, by asking that he explain exactly what was false and unbacked about them. I don't believe that that request is unreasonable.
However, since neither he ( nor you, since you saw fit to intervene ) won't do that ( probably because neither he nor you CAN do that ), and since I remain besmirched in this thread because of his false accusations, I claim the right to post a response to remove doubt that the statements were false.

Statement 1 from the original quote - the so-called "bad post from another thread":

Originally posted by Originally posted by poster[/quote:

First, everyone knows that Wilson really WAS recommended for the assignment by his wife.

Madmordegon's response:

Originally posted by Madmordegon:

This is pure bullshit.

Firstly, Wilsonâ��s wife recommending him for the assignment has nothing to do with anything.

Madmordegon's claim that my statement "has nothing to do with anything" in NO WAY supports his contention that it is false and unbacked. Furthermore, the statement is NOT false, and was NOT unbacked.
As was pointed out in the other thread, and must now be pointed out here, Wilson's wife DID recommend him for the assignment. To wit: this quotation from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report from July, 2004,( Ref: HERE(pg 39) (pdf)

Originally posted by the Senate Report:

The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] 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." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable {DELETED TEXT} requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf. {DELETED TEXT}. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region {DELETED TEXT}.

(emphasis mine)

Statement 2 from the original quote - the so-called "bad post from another thread":

Originally posted by Originally posted by poster[/quote:

Second, everyone knows that she was NOT an undercover operative of the CIA.

Madmordegon's response:

Originally posted by Madmordegon:

Secondly, she WAS an undercover CIA operative. Not even her friends or next door neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, they were questioned.

First, I have neighbors, too, and I don't know where many of them work. I would venture to say that most Americans have neighbors whose place of employment they do not know. The fact that her neighbors did not know where she worked, therefore, has absolutely no relevence or bearing on the issue.
That leaves only the question of whether she was an undercover CIA operative. Some "nuance" has been attempted in which the terms "undercover" and "covert" are somehow deemed to be "different", and therefore that while Plame was NOT "covert" she WAS "undercover", hence my statement is false. Not so. "Undercover" and "covert" are used to define the same state of cover.
U.S. CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER IV, SECTION 421 is entitled Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources. ( ref:HERE ) Note that nowhere within its contents is the word "undercover" used. All internal references use the term "covert". Since "undercover" is used only in the title but not in the body, and "covert" is used only in the body but not in the title, one MUST infer that the terms are used in the law to mean the same thing. Hence, if Plame WAS undercover, then she was, by the definition of the law, "covert".
Now, as I pointed out in the other thread, and must now point out here, she was NOT covert or undercover. To wit: The term "covert" is defined in the U.S. Code ( ref: HERE
says:

(4) The term "covert agent" meansâ��
(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 agencyâ��
(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

Since Valerie Plame was NOT serving outside the United States, and HAD NOT served outside the United States within the last five years, it is clear that she was NOT a "covert" agent.

If that is not enough to convince you, then perhaps the fact that 36 major news organizations and reporters' groups filed an amici brief with the U.S. District Court in petition to avoid forcing journalists to testify before the Grand Jury is.( Ref: HERE ( pdf ) )
Part of their argument is that "There Is Ample Evidence On The Public Record To Cast Considerable Doubt That A Crime Has Been Committed" ( page 5 of the brief ) since, as outlined in that brief, Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent. If you don't believe ME, then you are, by association, saying that you don't believe ABC, NBC, CBS, the Hearst Corp, Knight Ridder Corp, Newsweek, McGraw Hill, the Tribune Co, and the Washington Post, among others.
Not that the fact that they filed a brief is proof of my point. Only that the fact that they filed a brief is proof that THEY agree with ME, and not with Madmordegon and others who claim that Valerie Plame was an undercover ( covert ) agent.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 10:10:16.

10/31/2005 11:21:46 AM · #44

Valerie Plame was working as an undercover CIA agent in nonofficial cover, as opposed to official cover. That means that she was not connected with a specific official department or agency of the government and did not have protection of a diplomatic passport. The role taken on by a NOC agent is with an organization that does not have governmental ties, and this seems to be the case with Valerie Plame.

She was working as an employee for a front company named Brewster Jennings and Associates, which the CIA has admitted to be a front company for their operations. This appears to be the definition of uncover agent that Patrick Fitzgerald used when he said on Friday:
"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."

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/31/2005 11:48:24 AM · #45

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

And exactly what, in Fitzgerald's statement would any intelligent person infer to mean that Plame was "undercover"? I don't think that I, or anyone else, has atttempted to deny that she worked for the CIA - only that she was "undercover". And the fact that it was "classified" information does not carry with it the imprimature that she was "undercover". He says that her identity was not "widely" known outside the intelligence community. If not "widely" known, then to what extent WAS it known - since his disclaimer implies that it WAS known outside the intelligence community, at least to some extent? And what is this "other life" she had? Anyone with a car could have followed her from her home to CIA headquarters any day of the week. Is is common for "undercover" agents to commute to CIA headquarters every day? How long could someone expect to keep their "cover" if they did that? If she commuted to CIA headquarters openly, doesn't that action indicate a failure to meet the requirement that the agency take "affirmative actions" to protect her identity as required by the 1982 law?
And your claim that it "appears to be the definition" of an undercover agent that Fitzgerald used is insufficient to discount the data that I posted - which is not just conjecture. Those are facts, contained in official government documents.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 12:16:52 PM · #46

RonB, do you care that one of our high-placed officials disclosed the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes, clearly undermining our democratic principles? Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

Do you care that people in this Administration lie to the Congress and the American people?

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 12:18:08.

MadMordegon

10/31/2005 12:17:10 PM · #47

RonB, watch the 2 video's at the bottom of my original post. Especially the one by Larry Johnson who is ex CIA who went to school with Valerie.

Also, your right I should have said false and misleading. Because your talking point about her recommending him has no bearing on anything, but it is true. I am just really sick of seeing it used as a talking point to confuse people.

Not only was her cover blown, but the cover of her front company and everyone else within it.

MadMordegon

10/31/2005 12:17:56 PM · #48

Originally posted by GeneralE:

RonB, do you care that one of our high-placed officials disclosed the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes? Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime??

He should work for Fox News. He has no shame.