Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[maineman]

Yeah, I see something wrong. I see a partisan witch hunt. I see an agent being called "covert" who doesn't meet the criteria. I see an agent being called covert 3 years after being pulled from the field when CIA SOP for maintaining cover is 2 years.

I see a woman who used her position to get her hubby a job, and he had to run his mouth so bad that HE brought attention down on himself; thus, his wife; yet you lefties INSIST on blaming Republicans.

I see a trivial conviction as a face-saving justification for existence that has nothing to do with the charges. In fact, no one has been charged nor convicted for blowing Plame's cover.

I see lefties wanting to convict Republicans for blowing Plame's cover; yet, refuse to accept the legal definition of "covert" as the defining factor.

You betcha I see something wrong.

according to what I have seen, she may have been "pulled from the field" three years prior, but had made several official trips overseas during that time.

Fighting over the legalese is a smoke screen. The DCI has said that she was covert. The DCI has said that disclosing her identity HURT our nation's intelligence efforts. Someone inside the Bush administration revealed her identity to the press. Either the person did it for nefarious partisan purposes or they were a bumbling idiot. Either way, someone should be held to account for doing so.

 

[red states rule]

according to what I have seen, she may have been "pulled from the field" three years prior, but had made several official trips overseas during that time.

Fighting over the legalese is a smoke screen. The DCI has said that she was covert. The DCI has said that disclosing her identity HURT our nation's intelligence efforts. Someone inside the Bush administration revealed her identity to the press. Either the person did it for nefarious partisan purposes or they were a bumbling idiot. Either way, someone should be held to account for doing so.

Keep grasping for that one last straw

Ignore the law that proves she was not covert, and ignore the fact she was nothing more then a mid level paper pusher

 

[Care4all]

the SWITCHBOARD at Langley freely admitted she was a CIA Employee


Can you link me to court documents, and/or non-partisan mainstream sources that demonstrate this.

thanks.

Perhaps it is because the sources are right wing talking point blogs? Or even from the memo Martin released for the "talking points" on the Wilson rebuttle per VP Cheney/ Libby/ Rove etc? I guess they may not realize that the talking points they are using against Wilson are "talking points" devised and created by the SPIN dept of the VP?

These talking points were introduced as evidence in the trial and available to all....at any link having the transcripts of the trial, the DOJ site has it, the National Archive site has it....

But no one wants to do the legwork and see these things? I really don't get it?

care

 

[red states rule]

Perhaps it is because the sources are right wing talking point blogs? Or even from the memo Martin released for the "talking points" on the Wilson rebuttle per VP Cheney/ Libby/ Rove etc? I guess they may not realize that the talking points they are using against Wilson are "talking points" devised and created by the SPIN dept of the VP?

These talking points were introduced as evidence in the trial and available to all....at any link having the transcripts of the trial, the DOJ site has it, the National Archive site has it....

But no one wants to do the legwork and see these things? I really don't get it?

care

Care, you really need to stop listening the liberal outlets like CNN, Keith OVerbite, and Dead Air America

Plame was nothing more then a mid level paper pusher - who only took up space at the CIA

She was not covert - she got her husband a job - he did the job by the hotel pool - and now both of them are maiming money off the fools who actually believe they are victims

 

[Care4all]

Well, I think this needs to be reread.

Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference

Courtesy of FDCH e-MEDIA
Friday, October 28, 2005; 3:57 PM

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 special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent 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 into 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.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it 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 that cover being blown was when 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 to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

FITZGERALD: I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating 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 the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an 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 $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

FITZGERALD: 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. 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 jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public.

And as frustrating as 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're 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.

FITZGERALD: And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.

But as important as it is 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 investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.

FITZGERALD: Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, 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 an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

FITZGERALD: The focus of the interview was what 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 that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to 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 Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of the New York Times.

FITZGERALD: And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 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 the reporters he made clear that he did 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 about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and 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 had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

FITZGERALD: When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told 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 will lead the FBI to go away if only it were true. 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. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

FITZGERALD: 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 was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and 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 from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

FITZGERALD: It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time 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.

FITZGERALD: It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the 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 it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in 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 go on a trip.

FITZGERALD: So that 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.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

FITZGERALD: The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in the New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA -- and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short -- and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying;" Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true;" Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

FITZGERALD: At the end of the day what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

FITZGERALD: We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system.

I would be remiss at this point if I didn't thank the team of investigators and prosecutors who worked on it, led by Agent Eckenrode, or particularly the staff under John Dial (ph) from the Counterespionage Section in the Department of Justice; Mr. Zidenberg (ph) from Public Integrity, as well as the agents from the Washington field office and my close friends in the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office, all of whom contributed to a joint effort.

And with that, I'll take questions.

 

[red states rule]

How about commenting on what the writers of the LAW had to say - like how Plame was NOT covert

 

[maineman]

Keep grasping for that one last straw

Ignore the law that proves she was not covert, and ignore the fact she was nothing more then a mid level paper pusher

the fact is: the director of central intelligence stated that the disclosure of Plame's status hurt the intelligence efforts of our country. Why do you condone that? Is the DCI a LIAR?

 

[DeadCanDance]

the fact is: the director of central intelligence stated that the disclosure of Plame's status hurt the intelligence efforts of our country. Why do you condone that? Is the DCI a LIAR?

Let's face reality: The reason bush fans are so desparate to disparage Plame and the CIA, is because they spent three years claiming things that Fitzgerald, court documents, and the DCI have demonstrated were false. Wingnuts claimed that virtually everyone in DC knew Plame and what she did; Wingnuts claimed that journalists gave Rove and Libby Plames name and identity (not the other way around); wingnuts claimed the Plame was a paper pusher and not a NOC or covert agent; wingnutters claimed nobody in the white house was involved in the leak.

Every one of their claims has been demonstrated to false. Just like WMD and the Iraq War. Ego is keeping them from admitting they were wrong. They worshipped this adminstration, and it would be mentally and emotionally devasting for them to recognize that the admin is either bumbling idiots, political hacks, or at worst, treasonous.

 

[Truthmatters]

It is very disheartening to realise how many Americans there are who have no real respect for the truth.

 

[Care4all]

everyone, please read links 1 and 2, at least!

http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/sear...heet=default_frontend&site=default_collection

 

[DeadCanDance]

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 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."

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

--Libby Trial Court Filings

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

-- Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml

.

"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA."

-CIA Director Michael Hayden

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/16/cnr.02.html

 

[maineman]

They worshipped this adminstration, and it would be mentally and emotionally devasting for them to recognize that the admin is either bumbling idiots, political hacks, or at worst, treasonous.

Or they have "recognized" it all along, and are complicit in the actions and aspirations of this venal and terribly inept administration.

We have to accept the fact that a large portion of America has either been profoundly hoodwinked by this bunch, or is consciously complicit... and in each case, they either are embarrassed to admit their mistake, or hope that the slumbering public will not notice. They should realize that, in the former case, they would gain enormous credibility if they just admitted they fucked up....and in the latter, America is either awake or awakening and is or will be pissed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting for one shred of evidence that Libby, Rove or Cheney KNEW she was a covert agent AND disclosed that status. In fact the results of the trial indicate LIBBY did NOT disclose her as a covert agent, nor meet the requirements to be charged with doing so. Or are you claiming the prosecutor was a Bush stoolie that didn't make the charge to protect someone?

As for the above drival.... Explain again how one is a COVERT asset being actively protected, traveling at times undercover with her real name when all one need do is call the switchboard and they would gladly tell you she was IN FACT an employee of the CIA? So much for undercover. So much for being hidden as an asset of the CIA.

The above is nothing more than the opinion of the DCI, and it must be a weak opinion since the prosecutor wouldn't even risk having it tested in court against Libby.

You people keep making spurious claims against people that have NEVER been charged at all. Remind me again about how our legal system works? What was the standard again? Innocent until proven guilty? Well I guess that only applies if your a Democrat caught on tape arranging bribes, receiving money and the money is found hidden in your house.

 

[Superlative]

You people keep making spurious claims against people that have NEVER been charged at all. Remind me again about how our legal system works? What was the standard again? Innocent until proven guilty? Well I guess that only applies if your a Democrat caught on tape arranging bribes, receiving money and the money is found hidden in your house.

I guess that solves it all.

RGS says he believes everything he is ever told, and the GOP can do no wrong, and anyone who claims otherwise, is a Left wing Conspiracytheorist, not to mention un-patriotic and un-American.

For shame Liberals, For Shame.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess that solves it all.

RGS says he believes everything he is ever told, and the GOP can do no wrong, and anyone who claims otherwise, is a Left wing Conspiracytheorist, not to mention un-patriotic and un-American.

For shame Liberals, For Shame.

I notice you have no evidence to support your claim..... And neither did the Prosecutor.

 

[Superlative]

I notice you have no evidence to support your claim..... And neither did the Prosecutor.

I guess that proves it then, the prosecutor didnt have enough evidence to bring down the Vice President of the United States of America, or Karl Rove.

So it gets religated to a Kook, Left Wingnut, conspiracy theory.

Its a perfect closed circle jerk of happiness.

Even if I could provide evidence, you would provide counter evidence anyway, cause if it was that readily available, it wouldnt even be considered justifiable.

Who's gonna try and take any of the elites in the US to court for wrong doing?

The world court couldnt even do that in the 80's why should anyone bother trying?

So, you keep being right, and Ill keep being crazy.

Nothing will change either way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess that proves it then, the prosecutor didnt have enough evidence to bring down the Vice President of the United States of America, or Karl Rove.

So it gets religated to a Kook, Left Wingnut, conspiracy theory.

Its a perfect closed circle jerk of happiness.

Even if I could provide evidence, you would provide counter evidence anyway, cause if it was that readily available, it wouldnt even be considered justifiable.

Who's gonna try and take any of the elites in the US to court for wrong doing?

The world court couldnt even do that in the 80's why should anyone bother trying?

So, you keep being right, and Ill keep being crazy.

Nothing will change either way.

He did not even have enough evidence to charge much less try to convict Libby of it. Explain again how, if Libby did not disclose her knowingly as a covert agent, he was then ordered to do so By Cheney? And why Rove was not charged either, he admitted he told someone she worked for the CIA after all.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry but libby is a scapegoat, he shouldnt take the fall. I heard she worked at a desk, where am i stupid on this

 

[Care4all]

im sorry but libby is a scapegoat, he shouldnt take the fall. I heard she worked at a desk, where am i stupid on this

May I ask, WHERE you got your information that she worked at a desk job?

Read the links in the thread and read the thread, you are a product of govt brain washing, set out to confuse, I would never say you are stupid!

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

May I ask, WHERE you got your information that she worked at a desk job?

Read the links in the thread and read the thread, you are a product of govt brain washing, set out to confuse, I would never say you are stupid!

Care

STILL waiting for that evidence that Libby told anyone she was a COVERT agent