Posted on 11/18/2005 6:08:22 AM PST by frankjr
Earlier this afternoon, I had a very unpleasant conversation with Mr. Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who is now out and about defending Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Johnson, in my interview with him, confirmed some things, left some open, but revealed something startling: the defense of Joe Wilson is apparently being run from inside the CIA.
Johnson came up on the scope when he accused Gens. Paul Vallely and Tom McInerny of falsely attacking Wilson. Vallely, you may recall, said last week on John Batchelor's ABC radio show that Wilson -- husband of CIA employee Valerie Plame -- had told Vallely (a year before Robert Novak outed Plame) that Plame was a CIA employee. I asked Johnson about several points regarding his defense of Wilson and attack on Vallely. Johnson was very specific about certain things.
First, he said that since Vallely had made his statements, he -- Johnson -- has been in contact with both Wilson and Plame, and that Wilson denied to him making the statement to Vallely. But there is a lot more. I asked Johnson about a statement he made to congressional Democrats in July.
In particular, I asked him about the statement attacking Fred Rustman -- one of Plame's former CIA supervisors who left the agency in 1990 -- who had said she was under "light cover." Johnson's statement said Rustman's claims are not true. When I asked if he had talked to Rustman or Plame about it, Johnson became agitated. He said, “I talked to several people, I’ve talked to multiple people…" When I pressed him on who, he said:
"Hey, I’m not getting into specifically which individuals I’ve talked to, some are still active duty.
“I’ve not talked to Rustman. I’ve talked to people that know and it’s absolutely certain that Rustman has not been in contact with her, has not stayed in contact with her and did not know her subsequent status when she turned, when she became a NOC."
When I told him I would have to conclude that his statement was not supported because he wouldn't cite sources, instead of accepting this as just one man's conclusion, Johnson continued to be agitated and argued,"Your conclusion is wrong...I have had contact with other individuals, [tape garbled] other CIA officers who had contact with Fred." (emphasis added)
Johnson insisted on giving me what he called, the direct quote: "I have spoken with people who are knowledgeable, who have direct knowledge of the situation. I have spoken to multiple sources on this and they -- to a person -- indicate that Rustman was not in social contact with her after 1992 and had no knowledge of her new status as non-official cover officer."
The conversation ended a moment or two later when Mr. Johnson suggested I should place the entire matter inside a bodily orifice, which I declined to do. At that point, I hung up on him.
What does all that mean? When Johnson says that he has been in contact with other CIA officers, some still on active duty, about Rustman it can mean only one thing: someone -- or some group -- still on active service inside the CIA is managing and directing the people such as Johnson who are attacking Wilson's critics and doubters. (Correction: there is one alternative possibility, that Mr. Johnson's story and defense of Wilson/Plame is baloney. Either is equally possible.) This story gets worse and worse. Stay tuned.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! Look at all the lefties upset that their house of cards has fallen...
I used to have some measure of respect for Johnson. Not anymore. The guy is a buffoon.
Yes, it is nuts to hear the LEFTIES supporting the CIA. The RATS have always wrecked havoc over at CIA. The CIA needs to be put out of existence. Since the CIA is prohibited by law from spying domestically, why isn't it part of the DIA? I have never figured this out, other than back in the Eisenhower years, they wanted the CIA to be outside the DoD. Time to give the function of spying for defense purposes back to the DoD. NRO is over there and they control the spy satellites. CIA is off the reservation - I know that upsets all you retired CIA officers, but they have run amok and it is clear on this Wilson/Plame/Fitzgerald attepted take out of a sitting U.S. President. I don't need proof - the MSM has given it to us in bucketfuls.
Lefty Err America quotes this guy regularly and has him on the air whenever they want another "Take out Bush" interview. He is not one of ours, that is for sure.
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/index.cgi?2005-10-25-Charles
I have spoken to multiple sources on this and they -- to a person -- indicate that Rustman was not in social contact with her after 1992 and had no knowledge of her new status as non-official cover officer."
Spring 2003...Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official State Dept. cover. (Vanity Fair-January 2004, in the Wilsons' own words)
Larry Johnson...State Dept. Office of Counterterrorism, 1989 to 1993
Anne Pincus, wife of Walter Pincus, Clinton State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Carl Ford,Jr....former Asst. Sec. State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research.(Denies talking to Woodward)
State and CIA are deeply involved!
Paging Porter Goss...
There's nothing startling about this at all: the entire kerfuffle about the forged document and the trip to Niger was set up from the very beginning by the CIA as an attempt to embarrass the administration.
Everything that is going on, including the sham of the 9/11 Commission, is entirely about the permanent Washington bureacuracy that failed us so miserably for years leading up to 9/11 covering all their collective asses and avoiding any accountability. Anyone who dares step forward to tell the truth, such as a couple of the brave men involved with Able Danger, needs to be destroyed at all costs, because careers and repuations are on the line for all of history.
This gives me the creeps, Peach. I have wanted to continue to believe and trust our CIA. I don't see how I can anymore. I know the CIA and the State have been fighting a war against the president over Iraq since right after 9-11, but this is getting so much worse.
As the CIA escalates, I want to fight them! This nonsense over Wilson/Plame is being run by the cia???
Meant to include you on the ping above. I missed this the first time around, but it strikes me that some of Larry Johnson's remarks are extremely suggestive and reveal more than he meant to. In trying to convince Babbin of the strength of his sources, Johnson has clearly indicated that the cabal is tightly wound around Valerie Pflame herself and some of her buddies still active duty in the CIA. No way could even a pompous blowhard like Larry Johnson speak with such complete confidence and lack of qualification unless he were being assured by Valerie and her circle that he should definitely stick his neck out like this.........
Anything that "worries" Larry Johnson REALLY excites me!
no one has found anyone who knew Plame outside the CIA who says they knew she was CIA
Martin Peretz, Andrea Mitchell (with a recantation), and Hugh Sidey claim to have known.
Vallely claims to have been told by Joe, presumably on Sept 9, 2002.
Cliff May claims to have been told.
They are all lying?
And secondly, no one has been found - well, who is looking?
By the way, is Johnson on the witness list? I imagine Libby's lawyers could make Johnson's neck veins explode on the stand.
Libby's lawyers need to subpoena Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, and the other VIPS frauds. Johnson needs to be grilled under oath at great length by a top attorney. Like Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson (judging from his media comments) is a feeble-minded pompous blowhard; it should be easy for a top-drawer cross-examiner to rip his lying stories to shreds.
Larry Johnson under oath would be almost more than I could handle; he'd surely go to prison because, from what I have seen, he has NO contact with reality.
And you know he knows it ALL.
Once he quoted Joe and Valerie, everything else he said would be admissable.........har har har.
Let's write the attorneys!
http://www.scooterlibby.org/
Just saw this one - pulls in another direction but also seems to undermine case that Valerie Pflame was in any NOC role working for "Brewster-Jennings and Associates" of Boston, MA:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1599755/posts
PROOF Libby Not Guilty in CIA Leak--"Brewster-Jennings" Was Not Undercover
Carolyn Kuhn Tuesday, Mar. 07, 2006 at 11:11 PM
ACQUITTAL in CIA Leak Case -- Lewis "Scooter" Libby never should have been investigated for leaking former CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, because her cover company, Brewster-Jennings Associates (BJA) in Boston, is not undercover. Never has been, and I can prove it. SURPRISING NEWS ABOUT BREWSTER-JENNINGS FOLLOWS.
Plame's employer, Brewster-Jennings, apparently has never tried very hard to hide its activities. Former employees like Jean C. Edwards and Robert Lawrence Ellman even advertise their association with the company on the Internet! They were doing so before Brewster-Jennings and Valerie Plame came to light and they still are.
There was little inconvenience done to the US intelligence community by Dick Cheney's top aide Lewis Libby's outing of Valerie Plame and the subsequent outing of the Brewster-Jennings company, which is widely believed to be a CIA front company. Valerie Plame-Wilson had listed it as her employer on an campaign-contribution form. Sorry to disappoint you who are after Republican blood in the CIA leak matter, but hear me out.
Libby may be guilty, in some sense, of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice (as charged). But the investigation he allegedly lied and obstructed about was directed against leaking classified information, and there was little basis for the investigation in the first place. In a sense, this was an entrapment. Libby was set up to deceive in a phony investigation.
NEVER UNDERCOVER
Plame's employer, Brewster-Jennings, apparently has never tried very hard to hide its activities. Former employees like Jean C. Edwards and Robert Lawrence Ellman even advertise their association with the company on the Internet! They were doing so before Brewster-Jennings and Valerie Plame came to light and they still are.
Edwards, in her resume on the website of the Washington, D.C., law firm Akerman Senterfitt, says she worked for "Brewster-Jenning [sic] and Associates" in Boston as a consultant from 1985 to 1989.
One thing this means is that Brewster-Jennings is not a creature of the war on terror, which began after 9/11/2001.
Edwards says her work was as an engineering consultant. This work period was six years before she became an attorney. Her prior experience was with a Miami company involved in "electrophysiology," including pulse monitoring of cardiac patients. Her job at about the same time as the work for Brewster-Jennings of Boston was with another Miami company that manufactures electronics for behavior control -- of dogs. The company makes devices that give a dog pleasing audio tones for positive reinforcement of desired behavior and negative tones otherwise. It is reasonable that Edwards could be doing this in Miami because her resume says she was only consulting for Brewster-Jennings in Boston.
One could envision some kind of animal-control or electrophysiology technology (a type of electronic fence? a lie detector?) being used to detect pilferage in uranium mines in a place like Niger, where pilferage has been suspected. One could envision pulse-counting technology being used with a Geiger counter to assess the number of warheads on a passing train. Or one could envision Edwards' work as being prosaic and unrelated to any kind of security.
Then there is Robert Lawrence Ellmann, an attorney from Detroit who works in the Czech Republic for the law firm Jindrichovsky & Partners. His resume, also currently on the Internet, says he worked for "Brewster-Jennings & Associates, Boston, USA" in the period 1992-1996. Ellmann claimed he did "contract administration" for Brewster-Jennings. His resume says he speaks Czech and Italian. It is even more eclectic than Edwards', looking more like the bibliography of a mystery-novel series than a resume.
Surely if Brewster-Jennings was a US state secret, these highly intelligent people would not be outing it and themselves on the Internet, especially after all of the publicity it has received.
BREWSTER-JENNINGS: ORIGINALLY A PUBLIC COMPANY
So Brewster-Jennings once was a public company in Boston whose members made and still make no effort to conceal their association with it. It used at least two professions, engineering and law. Also, it started long before the war on terror.
The work performed there, at least when Edwards and Ellman worked there, must not have been CIA work since those two made no effort to hide it. Similarly, it is questionable whether Valerie Plame-Wilson was under cover either, which will complicate efforts to prove that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or anyone else deliberately exposed Plame as a covered agent of the CIA or damaged national security by causing the name "Brewster Jennings" to be made public. There is no leak crime if there is no leak. And there should have been no investigation to entrap Libby if there was no leak.
BREWSTER-JENNINGS AND VALERIE PLAME
Brewster-Jennings took the international spotlight in practically every newspaper and news broadcast in the world when the news came out that columnist Robert Novak allegedly outed a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and her CIA cover company, Brewster-Jennings, in July 2003.
According to Jean Edwards' eclectic resume (including a degree in physics, and a degree in French with honors), Brewster-Jennings had been in Boston 20 years ago. Yet no one has ever heard of it. This means the (a) either it was not in the same building all this time, the widely publicized address at 101 Arch Street, or (b) it was, or is, at that address under another name.
Although this has been erased from almost all databases, Brewster-Jennings once did share an address and phone number with the accounting firm Burke Dennehy in the same building. (The phone number is not the long-out-of-service number the media have given for Brewster-Jennings, 617-951-2529.) Burke Dennehy may have perfomed some kind of activity for Brewster-Jennings, maybe something innocuous like forwarding its mail and answering its phone. Maybe Brewster-Jennings was just a small, unimportant company that wanted a prestigious address.
The Burke Dennehy company once went by a longer name: Swampscott Burke Dennehy. "Swampscott," like "Brewster" in "Brewster-Jennings," is the name of a town in Massachusetts. There is no person to be found by that name. It is likely that "Brewster-Jennings" stands for the name of a person AND a town, Brewster, MA.
It is also known that Burke Dennehy did business with a Mr. Jennings at a well known Anglo-Irish bank with offices in Boston. One of the things his department does is set up trusts for expatriates. Burke Dennehy employed the accounting expertise of expatriates from Nepal, among other places, around 2001 and was named by a group protesting jobs going to foreigners.
None of this is to say that Brewster-Jennings or Burke Dennehy ever was involved with national security.
I doubt the media reports that have claimed the company was named after Brewster Jennings, a long-ago president of Socony-Vacuum, the predecessor to Mobil, which of course is an oil company.
(Does anyone out there know anything about the CIA's nomenclature practices? I sure don't. All I know of sleuthing comes from the Nancy Drew books. I also doubt that Brewster-Jennings was a CIA company.)
AN EXCLUSIVE ADDRESS
It's no wonder that Brewster-Jennings claimed to be based in the high-rise office building at 101 Arch St. in Boston. This adds a little class. The building is loaded with high-priced law firms and accountants, as well as a smattering of technology companies.
Also, it in the ZIP code 02110, and this has the most millionaires of any ZIP!
There's one thing Plame's alleged employer Brewster-Jennings does lack. No one has ever published a suite address for it. Without a suite number in this 21-story building, mail is returned to the sender as undeliverable. That is, unless the addressee is a well known tenant, and to this day no one in the building remembers Brewster-Jennings.
SUMMARY
Libby, Rove, Cheney, Novak and others did not damage US national security by what Novak and others published about Plame. There is no leak case against them because there was no leak. Brewster-Jennings, which Plame listed as her employer, was never a secret, at least not according to the two former employees cited here. Libby should not have been investigated for a nonexistent leak. If he hadn't been, he wouldn't be facing charges of perjury, false statements, and obstruction. There may be something rotten in Denmark, but what I smell in Boston is a red herring.
I have to disagree, Clown! would be a big step up for Joe Wilson.
Wonder if old Larry would tell the prosecutor and the judge to place the entire matter into a bodily orifice.
bttt
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.