Posted on 10/30/2005 4:37:14 PM PST by RWR8189
Editor's Note: Seven months ago, on March 23, the above-named news organizations, along with more than two dozen other companies and membership organizations collectively representing pretty much everyone in American journalism, filed a formal motion concerning the Valerie Plame leak investigation with the federal appeals court in Washington. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was then attempting to compel grand jury testimony in the case by reporters Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller. And pretty much everyone in American journalism--as the media's amici curiae filing, excerpted below, made clear--thought Fitzgerald's subpoenas to Cooper and Miller should be quashed. But does anybody in American journalism remember why?
* * *
In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate. . . .
The explanation by a White House official to Robert Novak that Joseph Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger because his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA represents a single fact in what has been an enduring and crucial news story for the past two years--i.e., did the Bush Administration invade Iraq with a reasonable, if mistaken, belief that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed weapons of mass destruction? . . .
The information given to Novak must be seen in light of this broader canvas, which also calls into question the conduct of the CIA and the intelligence community, and whether the government was taking the necessary steps to keep the name of a covert employee secret. It is in this context that a statute criminalizing the purposeful disclosure of the identity of a "covert agent"--which has been used only once in its 22-year history--is being invoked. But the circumstances necessary to prove that crime seem not to be present here. . . .
At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. . . . She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington--not stationed abroad--for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.
Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. . . . An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication. If this information is accurate . . . there is an absolute defense to prosecution. . . .
There are sufficient facts on the public record that cast considerable doubt as to whether the CIA took the necessary "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity. Indeed, these facts establish such sloppy tradecraft that, at minimum, the CIA was indifferent to the compromise of her identity.
The following facts are public:
* The CIA sent a non-CIA employee, Joseph C. Wilson IV, on a mission to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase "uranium yellow cake," an ingredient for making a non-conventional weapon.
* Wilson had not served in Niger for over two decades, and, unlike his supposedly undercover wife, was not an expert in nuclear weapons.
* Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement about his mission.
* Wilson was not prevented by the CIA from writing his Op-Ed for The New York Times, an article that not only criticized the Administration, but also detailed his mission and findings.
* When columnist Novak contacted the CIA to verify that Plame worked for the agency, he says that the Agency not only verified her employment but also failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name.
* The CIA's usual procedure when it is concerned that publishing a fact would endanger a covert agent is to have a high ranking official, usually the Director, contact the journalist and ask that information not be published.
* The CIA did not prohibit Plame from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," facts that are publicly available at the FEC.
Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low level" bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion. Did no one at Langley think that Plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate. . . .
While there is no suggestion that the Special Counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings.
Did he say IN the WH or IN the Administration? Not the same thing. Anybody know the exact quote? I think Novak was very careful in what he said. since the name is STILL not being made public it is pretty sure it is NOT a person in the WH.
What I dont understand is how it got to this point in the 1st place. I have been following the threads other FREEPERs have posted over the last several months. Many said a crime was not committed here since Valerie was NOT undercover at the time her name was leaked, rather she was working a desk job of some kind. Does this all mean thats not true and she was undercover and a crime was committed?
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th
Excerpt
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&adxnnl=0&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1121285238-8oqqNe4cDSnfRkCsCBHeHg
WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
Perfect illustration how the MSM operates. All the while they were calling for an investigation and speculating about the administrations involvement and hyperventilating about the outing of a COVERT CIA OPERATIVE, behind the scenes they were submitting court briefs IN STARK CONTRAST to their on air ramblings in order to protect their reporters.
Mission to Niger
By Robert Novak
Jul 14, 2003
Syndicated columnist
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.
Excerpt
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html
Ex-CIA official's remark is wrong
August 1, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.
Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.
In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."
This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.
My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.
So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."
Excerpt:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html#
Your confusion is understandable.
The answers to your questions are: a.) no, she was not "undercover", as defined by law and b.) yes, there may have been crimes committed -- but only after the investigation began.
Scooter Libby stands accused of lying to the grand jury about his role in the affair. But there was no underlying crime -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was apparently not violated because Plame was not "covert" as defined by the law.
His lips are sealed
But journalist Novak says it was ‘well-known in D.C.’ that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee
Published Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:00 am
by Dale M. King
CNN’s “Novak Zone” and “Capital Gang,” co-host of “Crossfire” and frequent guest on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
In the column that caused a major political flap, Novak said that Valerie Wilson, wife of retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, was a CIA employee.
Admitting to the Lynn audience Wednesday that he’s “in a little trouble,” Novak said he’s been asked two questions about his decision to name her: “Why did you print it – and why don’t you tell who told you that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA employee.”
He devoted much of his speech to the explanation.
Joseph Wilson, he said, was a former official in the Bill Clinton administration as well as an outspoken critic of Bush. Still, Novak said, Wilson was sent on a “supposedly secret mission” to Niger to check rumors that Iraqis had been there looking to purchase “yellow cake” uranium for nuclear weapons.
The importance of the mission took center stage, he said, when President Bush referred to the case in his State of the Union address.
Novak said Wilson reported that he found no indication of Iraqis on a uranium search in Niger.
The columnist said Wilson criticized Bush in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, and again on “Meet the Press.” Novak was on that show.
“Why is someone who is so critical of Bush – and who was an official of the Clinton administration – given such a secret mission?” Novak asked.
When the columnist started asking around, he said, he found that Valerie Wilson’s connection to the CIA was “well known.” So he wrote it in his column.
By doing so, he said, he ran afoul of “a little-known law” that makes the release of classified CIA information subject to a Justice Department investigation.
This all happened in July, he said. “Nothing happened until three weekends ago when Andrea Mitchell reported that there was a probe of a leak. Then, the balloon went up. There was a media feeding frenzy. President Bush was called on by his critics to investigate the White House.”
Novak said Wilson was “never a CIA agent” and hasn’t done undercover work for nine years.
He said he called a spokesman for the CIA after receiving information from two sources. “If they had told me she would be in danger, I would not have used her name,” he said. “He didn’t say it – and it wasn’t true. There was no gun to her head.”
Asked about his own future, Novak said, “I’m 72 years old. There’s not a hell of a lot they can do to me. I will continue to report what I see and what I feel to be true.”
Excerpt: http://www.bocaratonnews.com/index.php?src=news&category=LOCAL%20NEWS&prid=6539
The charges against Libby are for lying.
Lets say the prosecutor is investigating illegal outing of a covert agent.
While on the stand the prosecutor asks Libbly what color is the sky? Libby says blue. The prosecutor looks out side and sees nothing but gray clouds. He then has a witness document that the sky is gray. He then charges Libby with lying about the color of the sky. The sky is not blue. It is gray the prosecutor says. Libby lied about the sky. He must go to jail.
The charges against libby have nothing to do with outing a CIA agent. It has to do with the suject of a conversation Libby says he had with Tim Russert of NBC and Russert says he did not have with Libby.
Libby says that Tim Russert came to see him and they talked about Valery Plame and Her Husband. Tim Russert says he never talked to Libby about Valery Plame and her husband. The prosectuor believes Russert.. So Libby is charges with lying about what he and Russert talked about over 2 years ago in a conversation Libby remembers and Russert does not.
They are not in the White House. They are PROBABLY CIA. Probably covered by the Covert Op law that started this whole thing which is why they still have not been named. Administration officals is NOT the same thing as being in the WH. This story at the head of this thread is wrong when it saysThe explanation by a White House official
That is not at all what Novak said.
I for one--after going over articles i printed up some 7 months and three months ago on this WHOLE TOPIC!!
---have decided that Harry "the body" Reid should get EXACTLY what he DEMANDED during a Press conference he attended held by Chucky " Cheese " Schummer!! Which was ,
"...and I DEMAND that the Senate PUSH to let the lawyers
get to the bottom of this and find out what crimes were committed that exposed a covert CIA agent!"
the Key WORD they ALSO used some YEARS-MONTHS weeks ago while they demand "JUSTICE" is ...."....CRIMES...."
....I guess they could find any "CRIMES" which is WHAT they asked for--
...couldn't :FIND" any "Un-Covering"...let alone any
" COVERT " CIA "AGENT" either!!!
So WHY are they continuing?? How WILL they continue next time ..when it's a democrat??
Chris
From Novak Column
During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.
Not the crime for which the investigation was opened.
"There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip".
Nothing secret about your trip?? LOL!
I am fed up with both parties.They all play games.Libby was Marc Rich lawyer since 1985 and fought for his pardon!!!
CNN.com - GOP lawyer: Facts 'misconstrued' in Rich case - March 2, 2001
Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.
The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.
bttt
The truth is that the fact that no underlying crime was committed was identifiable with no more than:
(1)a reading of the two primary laws concerning the divulging of United States intelligence secrets,
and
(2)a clear understanding of:
(A) Valerie Plame's "classified" status,
(B) her position with the CIA, plus
(C) how that position and actions of the CIA and actions of Valerie Plame had established and protected (or not) her "classified" status,
and finally
(D)how all of those elements taken together did or did not place her and her status in a position that makes the "leaking" of her status a crime.
The truth is that the answers from legal analysts have repeatedly said that from (1) and (2) above it was clear that no underlying crime was committed. Valerie Plame and her status and her position and the actions of the CIA did not, taken together, place her and her status in a condition in which the "leak" of her status was a crime.
The truth is that those answers did not require any Grand Jury or any questions to or answers from anyone in the White House or any reporters. Reading the two primary laws covering the alleged "leak" and interviewing the appropriate parties at the CIA answered those questions.
The truth is that the Grand Jury process was used to conduct a hunting expedition, with a dismissal of items (1) and (2) above, on the prosecutor's assumption that well maybe, somehow, in some unknown way, some other statute was breached, in the process of the "leak" that was not a crime.
The truth is that the Grand Jury process did not find that any other underlying crime was committed, so the Grand Jury process was used by the prosecutor as a witch hunt to try and catch someone, anyone in an alleged "false statement" in the give-and-take of he-said-she-said testimony between opposing witnesses.
The truth is that the only "crime" that was committed was the political crime of the prosecutor not ending the witch hunt before it ever started, back when it was clear that the original charge, the supposed "leak", was not a crime.
The truth is that we have too many prosecutors, just like in the Martha Stewart case, who refuse to be honest with the public and come forward and say: "after so many weeks and so many millions, we have to conclude that the evidence does not provide grounds for any charge on the alleged crime, so we have no case to go forward with".
Instead we get open-ended prosecutions that hope to create the occurance of a crime through the Grand Jury testimony process.
That is why Libbey is being prosecuted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.