Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Fred Thompson's Billing Records Found | Main | I Guess He Had Collected His Medals And Gone Home By Then... »

July 19, 2007

Comments

clarice

anduril:"Is that to protect not merely their legit interests in restricting her revelations about the period when she really was covert? But we know that period ended well before 2002. Is there something else they legitimately don't want her writing about that happened between 1997 and 2002--or are they covering their butts in a way re the Libby prosecution: pretending she was covert up to 2002, so that at least theoretically Fitz could have thought there was a potential IIPA violation? If they put the cut off date as 1997, everyone would immediately know that they were admitting there never was even a potential IIPA violation"

That's the 64 thousand dollar question, anduril. Macsmind theorized long ago that Plame was involved along with Wilson in a CIA Black Op involving uranium in Niger...and this was either to provide off the books funding for legitimate stuff or to illegally line some officers' pockets.
OTOH having provided this same nonsense to Fitz who ran with it, assuming it was merely an anti-Administration game, can the agency back off now without the S&*^ hitting the fan?

Patrick R. Sullivan

The funny thing about the CIA's affidavit in the civil suit is that virtually all the rationales it is using about protecting their sources and methods apply to Joe's telling stories to Kristof, Pincus and other reporters.

Where's the evidence that the CIA got concerned when stories began appearing in the press that were based on Joe's trip? Did any supervisor call Val in and ask her what was up with the Kristof and Pincus feud?

And, how did Lindsay Moran get away with publishing a book that goes into detail about her training, her foreign assignments and the people she recruited to work with her in Eastern Europe?

clarice

Why did the CIA let Pillar prance around before the election attacking the Administration; why did they sit on the Wilsonleaks, why did they allow Scheuer to publish an anti-Administration book before the election? It's all the same thing. And when Goss tried to deal with it by firing M.O.M., a leaker of the first order and a Kerry backer, the fifth column stabbed him in the back and forced his removal.

anduril

can the agency back off now without the S&*^ hitting the fan?

Posted by: clarice | July 21, 2007 at 02:24 PM

I'm funny like that--I love to see S&*^ hitting the fans.

clarice

Me, too..but for that to happen, as I said above, Plame will have to challenge the info which the AAgency forwarded to Fitz and which he ran with to justify his behavior.

cboldt

-- Kappes is, in fact, clearly stating that even during the period when Plame was openly commuting to Langley, was openly meeting with Government employees who would have had no need to know that she was covert if she was covert, was openly attending Democratic fundraisers, and was openly meeting with journalists, her employment status was classified. --

Kappes is not using the odd phrase "employment status." His July 18, 2007 statement is the second I've seen of a statement that says something resembling "her identity as an employee of the CIA was classified." That is, the very fact that she was employed by the CIA was classified. All the previous statements introduce the legally-meaningless term "employment status." That's just smoke for the gullible.

"Identity as an employee of the CIA is classified" is an essential element, but not the only element, of obtaining an IIPA conviction.

The Kappes declaration being the second instance I am aware of where this element is alleged without the mumbo jumbo of "employment status" or other cruft, the first instance I am aware of is Fitzgerald, ORALLY, at his Oct 2005 presser.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified [from January 1st, 2002] through July 2003.

This utterance lacks the sort of precision that would accompany a formal allegation, but on its face, it's fair to read it as saying the very fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee was classified information.

I mused at TNH whether all the people that Ms. Wilson came in contact with at Langley were cleared to know that she was a CIA employee, and (for the CIA duty to take affirmative measures to conceal that she was a CIA employee) whether all had been told that to disclose that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee represented a potential criminal act.

---

The Kappes affidavit is in response to a Plame attack. See the May 31 Wilson v. McConnell complaint, especially paragraphs 52 and 56.

Comment with Link to Wilson Complaint against the CIA

Complaint in text at NoQuarter

cboldt

-- she is unquestionably publicly known to have been employed by the CIA --

Some hard evidence of that would be helpful. I'm inclined to think it exists, but right now the CIA is saying that from January 2002 until July 2003, it was NOT publicly known that Ms. Wilson was employed by the CIA. I say that with the definition that it is impossible to convert publicly known information into "classified" information, be it "confidential," "secret," or "top secret," and Kappes has said that the fact she was employed by the CIA was classified in that time period.

Cecil Turner

. . . whether all had been told that to disclose that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee represented a potential criminal act.

Fairly obviously one wasn't (Kohn?). . . the guy who wrote the notes appended to the INR memo. Which was how it leaked in the first place. Kinda makes it hard to take the rest of this seriously as a leak case.

Elliott

can the agency back off now without the S&*^ hitting the fan?

Posted by: clarice | July 21, 2007 at 02:24 PM

I'm funny like that--I love to see S&*^ hitting the fans.

Posted by: anduril | July 21, 2007 at 02:30 PM

Be careful, you two. We can't have you getting in trouble for throwing an ampersand in the umpire's eyes.

Chants

Speaking of the INR memo....

Cecil is too modest to toot his own horn. So I will do it for him.

Cecil Turner was the first person to isolate the INR memo as the leak vector. For me, that was the Rosetta Stone of the Plame Affair.

clarice

I toot his horn as often as I can because he is so good at winkling out things and explaining them clearly.

Topsecretk9

Man, I am trying to catch up and it seems I need the "for dummies" version - can anyone spell it out for me? Pretty please?

MJW

Clarice: BTW the WaPo reports of Fitz' appearance on the radio talk show that all the questions were about scooters, he failed the test but the moderators announced him a winner nevertheless.

A similar thing happened in Walton's courtroom.

Cecil Turner

Cecil Turner was the first person to isolate the INR memo as the leak vector. For me, that was the Rosetta Stone of the Plame Affair.

I'd love to take credit, but I think that distinction goes to David Cloud and the WSJ:

WASHINGTON -- An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.
While not explicitly claiming it was the source, that's clearly the implication. And though I might take credit for coining "leak vector"--which apparently isn't all that much in demand--the big picture tipoff came much earlier, and credit has to go to the WSJ.

clarice

Let me try it, TS:
1. The CIA will not give Plame permission to write her book. She can write about only what happened in 2003 and afrer when they say her position was declassified.
2. The Dep DCIA Kappes has filed an affidavit explaining why, citing the exact meaningless gibberish they gave Fitz and he used to suggest she was covert and the IIPA was applicable to his investigation.
3. While the sealed portion of the affidavit might establish the Agency's claim, the stuff on the record sure doesn't.
4. To win over the CIA's claim she'd have to argue the identical stuff that Fitz relied on is a pile of nothingness.

clarice

Isn't that the truth,MJW?

sylvia

Isn't anyone still concerned about this below from Pincus?:

"On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities,
It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation... My attorney discussed the matter with his attorney, and we confirmed that he had no problem with my testifying about our conversation."

I have not seen an explanation to work with this yet. Either Pincus is wrong about Fleischer admitting it to their lawyers, and we should figure out why Pincus got this false impression, or Fleischer committed serious perjury at trial.

The only thing I can think of is, even if Fleischer admitted it previously, because the conversations happened between their lawyers, it is protected speech and Fitz couldn't touch it.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Here's a review of Blowing My Cover by a former CIA case officer, who has the same question as I:

Ms. Moran's vignettes about training are well-written and paint a detailed picture of paramilitary and operational courses. It may well serve our many enemies to read this book. ("Hey, Osama, check out this cool evasion tactic!") I was shocked by the level of detail allowed by the CIA publications review board, as well as by how little has changed since I underwent the same greenhorn training 18 years earlier. I can only hope that Ms. Moran's detailed explanation of training exercises was allowed by the censors because the courses have been completely overhauled since she (a pre-September 11 graduate) took them.

Ms. Moran goes on to divulge more operational tricks of the trade, and each time she did so I winced. In the Directorate of Operations culture of my day (the 1980s and 1990s), it was unconscionable to go into such depth about the business of agent recruitment and surveillance detection.

And later in the review asks:

The last major female spy cover blowing episode was the Valerie Plame affair. The press was incensed. How could this fine young patriot be exposed? Those terrible Republicans in the White House! Most people ignored the fact that Ms. Plame, married to blowhard diplomat Joe Wilson, was in her fourth year of psychiatric care for post-partum depression after giving birth to twin boys. While it's possible Ms. Plame did good work in her dozen or so years on the job, it is unlikely the CIA would even want to send her overseas again.

Ms. Plame's husband, a former diplomat with a book to flog, chewed up the talk-show circuit, concocting his own 15 minutes of fame. A year ago this couple was outraged; recently they posed for a staged photograph in Vanity Fair, which caught them driving a convertible though Washington, D.C., Ms. Plame in glamorous sunglasses and windblown scarf. Ms. Moran seems to making a similar play for attention: Her book will be excerpted this weekend in the New York Times Magazine.

This is what I don't understand: With Ms. Plame, I never heard of such outraged punditry over a cover being blown. Now "Bridget Jones" Moran does it and Langley (and the press) couldn't care less?

clarice

Actually, I believe the twins are a boy/girl set but the point is well-taken. I do not know what was going on at the Agency in those years. Maybe everyone was too busy with sensitivity training to like actually do their work.

clarice

Sylvia--once more into the breach--When he gave his written deposition Pincus never gave the name>My attorney discussed the matter with his attorney, and we confirmed that he had no problem with my testifying about our conversation."
of his source. He was obviously talking about his CONVERSATION with Libby. His deposition evidence was consistent with his statement at trial--Libby didn't tell him about Plame.

He felt free to discuss the conversation because he had Libby's waiver.
He felt free to discuss his conversation with Fleischer even in the absence of a waiver from him, because at trial Fleischer testified he had talked to Pincus...ergo no confidentiality obligation existed then re him.

Topsecretk9

Thanks Clarice - I am out of town and keep having wireless issues but I appreciate it.

clarice

De nada, querita.

anduril

cboldt, I have no idea why you want to split hairs in this manner--it leads nowhere:

Kappes is not using the odd phrase "employment status." His July 18, 2007 statement is the second I've seen of a statement that says something resembling "her identity as an employee of the CIA was classified." That is, the very fact that she was employed by the CIA was classified. All the previous statements introduce the legally-meaningless term "employment status." That's just smoke for the gullible.

"Employment status" is not legally meaningless: it covers both the fact of an employment relationship as well as, potentially, the details of that employment relationship. The fact that she is/was an employee of the CIA may be declassified, revealed as information that was formerly classified--that does not mean that the details of her employment (desk jockey, analyst, covert operative) are now declassified as well.

I mused at TNH whether all the people that Ms. Wilson came in contact with at Langley were cleared to know that she was a CIA employee, and (for the CIA duty to take affirmative measures to conceal that she was a CIA employee) whether all had been told that to disclose that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee represented a potential criminal act.

This is idiotic. Anyone walking around Langley is required to wear badges that clearly identify that person's status and permission to be there--i.e, employee, contractor, visitor, etc.--so that all who encounter that person will know at a glance not only that their access has been cleared but will also know whether the terms of their access allows them to be unaccompanied or requires an escort. This applies to everyone, from DCI down, so that anyone not displaying the proper badges can be challenged. This is necessary in any facility with large numbers of employees, not all of whom know one another. Although Plame would be clearly identified as a CIA employee while walking about Langley, her status as a covert operative would certainly not be known from her identifying badge, as that status would not be necessary in order for her to have access to the facility--her bare employment status would suffice.

Could you please show me a law that says it is a crime (felony) to release classified information in general, such as the fact that one is employed by the CIA--if that employment status is in fact classified? I'd be very interested to see that. In fact, I'm fairly certain no such law exists.

For your own sanity you should stop "musing" about matters that you clearly have no experience with or about which you have no knowledge.

-- she is unquestionably publicly known to have been employed by the CIA --

Some hard evidence of that would be helpful. I'm inclined to think it exists, but right now the CIA is saying that from January 2002 until July 2003, it was NOT publicly known that Ms. Wilson was employed by the CIA. I say that with the definition that it is impossible to convert publicly known information into "classified" information, be it "confidential," "secret," or "top secret," and Kappes has said that the fact she was employed by the CIA was classified in that time period.

Whether or not Plame was publicly known to have been employed by the CIA is a matter that is/was, to a significant degree, beyond the control of the CIA. She may not have been a public figure during the period from January 2002 until July 2003 but that does not mean that within certain circles (press) she was not widely known to be employed by the CIA. Believe me, and I'll have to ask you to trust me on this, the government doesn't declassify someone's employment with the CIA just because they become known to a certain number of people, any more than it specifies which information within a paragraph marked (S) is actually classified secret--that's what redactors are for.

Paragraph 11 clearly states that, up until 10/2005, Plame/Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA remained classified--long after she had become a public figure. It's pretty clear from this that classification of one's employment relationship is not a statement about public knowledge.

Topsecretk9

Ms. Plame, married to blowhard diplomat Joe Wilson, was in her fourth year of psychiatric care for post-partum depression after giving birth to twin boys.

psychiatric care?

Topsecretk9

I heart Andruil - he's created a Dr. Seuss style post! Cool

sylvia

"He was obviously talking about his CONVERSATION with Libby. "

Well that is one possibility. However, if Pincus was talking about Libby, then why did he say this with it: "It turned out that my SOURCE, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source"?

Pincus testified to the fact that Fleischer was his "source" on Plame, not Libby. You can only have one original source on a secret. In addition the date of July 12 squares up with Fleischer. So in this case I think Pincus MUST have been talking about Fleischer.

clarice

anduril--our own ee cummings.

anduril
APOLOGIES!!

cboldt, I have no idea why you want to split hairs in this manner--it leads nowhere:

Kappes is not using the odd phrase "employment status." His July 18, 2007 statement is the second I've seen of a statement that says something resembling "her identity as an employee of the CIA was classified." That is, the very fact that she was employed by the CIA was classified. All the previous statements introduce the legally-meaningless term "employment status." That's just smoke for the gullible.

"Employment status" is not legally meaningless: it covers both the fact of an employment relationship as well as, potentially, the details of that employment relationship. The fact that she is/was an employee of the CIA may be declassified, revealed as information that was formerly classified--that does not mean that the details of her employment (desk jockey, analyst, covert operative) are now declassified as well.

I mused at TNH whether all the people that Ms. Wilson came in contact with at Langley were cleared to know that she was a CIA employee, and (for the CIA duty to take affirmative measures to conceal that she was a CIA employee) whether all had been told that to disclose that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee represented a potential criminal act.

This is idiotic. Anyone walking around Langley is required to wear badges that clearly identify that person's status and permission to be there--i.e, employee, contractor, visitor, etc.--so that all who encounter that person will know at a glance not only that their access has been cleared but will also know whether the terms of their access allows them to be unaccompanied or requires an escort. This applies to everyone, from DCI down, so that anyone not displaying the proper badges can be challenged. This is necessary in any facility with large numbers of employees, not all of whom know one another. Although Plame would be clearly identified as a CIA employee while walking about Langley, her status as a covert operative would certainly not be known from her identifying badge, as that status would not be necessary in order for her to have access to the facility--her bare employment status would suffice.

Could you please show me a law that says it is a crime (felony) to release classified information in general, such as the fact that one is employed by the CIA--if that employment status is in fact classified? I'd be very interested to see that. In fact, I'm fairly certain no such law exists.

For your own sanity you should stop "musing" about matters that you clearly have no experience with or about which you have no knowledge.

-- she is unquestionably publicly known to have been employed by the CIA --

Some hard evidence of that would be helpful. I'm inclined to think it exists, but right now the CIA is saying that from January 2002 until July 2003, it was NOT publicly known that Ms. Wilson was employed by the CIA. I say that with the definition that it is impossible to convert publicly known information into "classified" information, be it "confidential," "secret," or "top secret," and Kappes has said that the fact she was employed by the CIA was classified in that time period.

Whether or not Plame was publicly known to have been employed by the CIA is a matter that is/was, to a significant degree, beyond the control of the CIA. She may not have been a public figure during the period from January 2002 until July 2003 but that does not mean that within certain circles (press) she was not widely known to be employed by the CIA. Believe me, and I'll have to ask you to trust me on this, the government doesn't declassify someone's employment with the CIA just because they become known to a certain number of people, any more than it specifies which information within a paragraph marked (S) is actually classified secret--that's what redactors are for.

Paragraph 11 clearly states that, up until 10/2005, Plame/Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA remained classified--long after she had become a public figure. It's pretty clear from this that classification of one's employment relationship is not a statement about public knowledge.

clarice

Beats me Slyvia.When did he say that? I doubt Fleischer would have denied under oath at the trial if he were Pincus' soucre is he KNEW that Pincus had already testified otherwise under oath in a written deposition.
Of course, Pincus is rather senile--If you recall just a few months aggo he wrote a story about Feith that he said was the Inspector General's report when in fact it was from a presser by an anti-Feith Dem.

clarice

*** I doubt Fleischer would have denied under oath at the trial he was Pincus' source if he KNEW that Pincus had already testified otherwise under oath in a written deposition.

cboldt

Kristoff stated an outing of Ms. Wilson by Ames too - 10/14/03

Bill Gertz too in 2004 The Gertz article was cited by 36 press organs in it's motion for rehearing en banc, the "Miller & Cooper must Testify" case.

I'm still drawing blanks on Plame's association with the CIA being a matter of general knowledge (at least not a hidden matter) before July 2003.

sylvia

"Beats me Slyvia.When did he say that? I doubt Fleischer would have denied under oath at the trial if he were Pincus' soucre is he KNEW that Pincus had already testified otherwise under oath in a written deposition."

Yes something is VERY strange here. Perhaps that's how Fitz found out Fleischer was Pincus's source without Pincus naming him originally, because Fleischer's lawyers were in secret talks with Fitz to admit it.

But they couldn't come up with a proper immunity/waiver agreement to satisfy everyone, so they just agreed to have some sort of immunity arrangement where Pincus says what he wanted to at trial, and have Fleischer just say what he wanted to at trial, and just have Fitz leave it at that. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know how legally ethical that would be though.

clarice

I doubt that scenario, Sylvia, but I've done my best and it will have to remain a mystery to you, I suppose.

cboldt

-- It's pretty clear from this that classification of one's employment relationship is not a statement about public knowledge. --

I understand that, and the fact that the CIA is abusing "classification" is easy to show, as they assert their Feb 16, 2006 letter in the Congressional Record contains classified information.

Some hard evidence would be helpful to show that "the fact that Ms. Wilson is employed by the CIA between the dates of Jan 2002 and July 2003 is classified" represents a misclassification.

cboldt

No need to apologize anduril. You all carry on.

sylvia

The scenario does seem a little strange, however, I don't see what other scenario would work though.

Too bad Libby's lawyers couldn't have tried something with this. They could have done some research and then gotten Pincus on the stand and asked him if Fleischer had been in talks with his attorneys to admit he was Pincus's source, just like Pincus wrote in his article. If Pincus confirmed that, that would have gone a long way to making Fleischer a known perjurer, and the important Libby lunch conversation could have fallen by the wayside.

anduril

-- Some hard evidence would be helpful to show that "the fact that Ms. Wilson is employed by the CIA between the dates of Jan 2002 and July 2003 is classified" represents a misclassification. --

Supposing that this is a misclassification, it will get you nowhere. If the CIA admitted that this was a misclassification I can see no effect that such an admission would have in the real world.

-- the CIA is saying that from January 2002 until July 2003, it was NOT publicly known that Ms. Wilson was employed by the CIA. --

No they're not saying that. They saying nothing at all as to the state of public knowledge re Plame/Wilson. They're simply saying 1) that her employment relationship with the CIA was classified from 1/12002 and forward--presumably until the employment relationship was terminated--and 2) that she was a covert employee during that same period. Of course, they reveal nothing about what "covert" could possibly mean in these circumstances, since she was acting in such a way as would reveal her employment relationship to anyone who had an interest. I assume that Michael Scheuer's employment relationship was also classified, even while he was publishing his famous (and fatuous) book and everyone in Washington (and everyone who followed the story) knew who Anonymous was.

anduril

While Andy McCarthy has not had much of sense to say about Plamegate, his latest at the Corner is a nice summary of another pseudo-scandal:

The U.S. Attorney Firings: It's Politics, Not Law [Andy McCarthy]

As it reaches the end-game stage, it may finally be dawning on Democrats, who continue mulishly pursuing the "scandal" over the firing of U.S. attorneys, that the issue is political, not legal — something I've repeatedly argued (see, e.g., here and here), as have others.

U.S. attorneys have no power of their own. The power they exercise is executive power, which the Constitution vests entirely in the president. They are his delegates, not independent actors, and he may fire them for any reason or no reason. If he fires them for a stupid reason, that is a political blunder for which the president and his Justice Department will be politically damaged — as has certainly happened here. But it is not a crime.

Congressional Democrats have tried to investigate it as if it were a crime. They've violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles by issuing subpoenas to some of the president's top aides. The White House wisely declined to comply, and Congress's next step is to try to hold them in contempt of Congress.

Only there's a small problem. The Constitution vests Congress with no authority to prosecute. That is an executive power. Congress can say "prosecute" all it wants. It needs a U.S. attorney to do it. But the U.S. attorneys work for the president. Flexing its constitutional muscles, the executive branch is not going to prosecute any contempt urged by Congress. Checkmate. Like this whole theater from the start, the issuance of subpoenas and the chatter about contempt is political, not legal.

The wiser Democrats already see that. As the Washington Post reports this morning, it's exactly the position taken by the Clinton administration's Justice Department.

This controversy has been a political coup for Democrats. They've exposed some pretty embarrassing details about the day-to-day operation of the Justice Department. But there are only so many points to be wrung from every political drama, and this one has run its course. Time to stop wasting time pretending this is a criminal matter.

Patrick R. Sullivan

In addition to writing books about their secret CIA careers before their 5 years were up, Melissa Mahle (last assignment overseas 2002) and the above mentioned Lindsay Moran (2001-03) appeared on the Jim Lehrer Newshour in 2005.

How did the agents each of them recruited overseas feel about the CIA when they saw that? Moran's book certainly was noticed in Macedonia when it came out.

Rocco

In response to an article by Nicholas Kristof on May 6, 2003, "Missing in Action:Truth", Scooter Libby, on May 29th, asked the third man in line at the State Department if he knew about a former ambassador's trip to investigate yellowcake.

Marc Grossman testified that twenty three days after Kristof's article, he was embarrassed to tell Libby he knew nothing about it. So he went to Armitage first who claimed he knew nothing about it. Then Grossman testified he contacted Carl Ford from INR and Walter H Kansteiner III. Kansteiner was at the time the Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of African Affairs. I can understand Ford knowing, INR is the Intelligence Branch of the State Department but why would the Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of African Affairs know of a trip set up by the CIA. Another thing...Kristof mentioned the "State Department" three times in that article on May 6th, yet the third man in charge at State, Grossman didn't know anything about it until Libby asked on the 29th?

I got to thinking about Kansteiner, not too much is heard of him, but I found an article from The Brookings Institution dated June 30, 2003 by Kansteiner. He's describing Bush's travel itinerary for his trip.

The when is the 7th to the 12th, as the President has announced, of July. I think we actually arrive in the first stop, which is Senegal, on the 8th. So the trip looks something like this. We go to Senegal, and from there to South Africa, from there to Botswana. After Botswana is Uganda, and the last stop on the trip is Nigeria, and then home.

One of two men Grossman asked on May 29, 2003 about Wilson's trip was busy in late June, planning the president's trip to Africa on July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's op-ed.

From Kansteiner's Bio

Walter H. Kansteiner III was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs on Monday, June 4, 2001. Prior to assuming his duties at the Department of State, Mr. Kansteiner was a founding principal of the Scowcroft Group. He has more than 20 years experience with African and emerging market business issues. Mr. Kansteiner has advised corporations on a wide range of mergers, acquisitions, and privatizations throughout Africa. Recent transactions that he has been involved with include telecommunications, forestry, financial services, healthcare, and aviation services. Mr. Kansteiner advised the buy side on the $1.3 billion privatization of Telkom South Africa, the largest privatization in Africa to date.

A few moments googling "Telkom South Africa,Nitel", found this

Nigeria: Telkom South Africa bidding for Nitel

Thursday, 09 December 2004

Telkom South Africa and its mobile subsidiary Vodacom will bid for Nigeria’s state-owned telecom provider Nitel. Nitel owns mobile operator M-Tel.

Isn't Nitel involved in the Jefferson scandal?

Rocco

forgot the link

A few moments googling "Telkom South Africa,Nitel", found this

Sara

If Plame's CIA career is considered classified, then how does Scary Larry get away with telling the world all about their training at the CIA together?

cboldt

Off Topic - but these guys raised a different "defective appointment" issue before trial

Who the dickens keeps making these blasted defective appointments?

RichatUF

2 cute by 1/2 cboldt. Maybe Khadr just got lost, you know, on a late autumn hike. Hear its easy to get lost in Afghanistan. Close Gitmo I say, send them all to head hackers square in Jedda

Rocco-

I thought the phone company he was mixed up with was iGate, but then I did some googling and found this nugget...

For instance on page 4 the affidavit opens a discussion of the intended targets in the investigation according to the FBI. The names listed included the US Congressman William Jefferson, Vernon Jackson, a businessman and CEO of iGate, the US telecommunications firm trying to do broadband technology business in Nigeria through NITEL-for which the Congressman allegedly said he would pass on the $100,000 bribe to Vice President Atiku, and Brett M. Pfeffer, an assistant to the US Congressman.

from here

RichatUF

more for Rocco here

A few of the comments are about Kansteiner, I dropped something about the Im-Ex bank as well

Rocco

Thanks Rich

I'm off to work but I'll post a bit more when I get home.

Cecil Turner

Off Topic - but these guys raised a different "defective appointment" issue before trial

It's hard to take this one too seriously. If you read the actual filing, their point is that the Deputy SecDef signed the appointment "for" Gates. If this is the standard, seems to me we've got a lot of documents floating out there with autopen signatures . . .

Far more egregious is the sequence of foulups leading to the current snafu in Military Commissions. The traditional law of war approach was that enemy combatants (determined by forces in the field per Executive authority) could be held for the duration of the conflict, and tried by military commissions for war crimes if appropriate. The new rules are anyone's guess, following a comedy of errors.

The idiocy started with the stupidly decided Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wherein SCOTUS instituted a new right for [citizen] enemy combatants, to "a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." Only Justice Thomas's dissent resembled the former interpretation:

The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision.
The Executive extrapolated that right to all detainees, and in a major concession to the human rights crowd, instituted combatant status review tribunals to give detainees a chance at quick release, and define an enemy combatant:
a. Enemy Combatant. For purposes of this Order, the term "enemy combatant" shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.
The next step was the wrongly-decided Hamdan case, in which the Court found that the failure of Congress to explicitly allow military commissions made them unlawful. The only sensible position is found in Thomas's dissent:
The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the “[m]ilitary necessity,” ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.
Then, when Congress explicitly authorized the commissions with the Miliatary Commissions Act, they goofed up the basic terminology. As with the original Executive Order, they crafted the law around the Quirin decision, in particular:
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
Hopefully it's obvious that the "unlawful" part is determined by a guilty finding of the commission . . . and not that we're punishing folks before trial. But Congress apparently couldn't figure that out, because they defined folks subject to the commission as:
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. [emphasis added]
But of course a status tribunal only determines whether someone is a combatant or not, not whether they're guilty of the war crime. That determination was to be made at the military commission. But under Congress's rule, they can only be tried if they've already been found guilty.

So of course when the first two cases were brought, the judges threw them out:

Both judges found that the detainees could not currently be tried as "unlawful enemy combatants" under the Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA) [PDF text]. Hamdan and Khadr were designated "enemy combatants" by Combatant Status Review Tribunals [DOD materials] at Guantanamo, not "unlawful enemy combatants." [emphasis added]
I'm not sure where it's gone from there, because I just can't stand to read about it any more. But the case cboldt sites appears to be on par with the rest of the idiocy . . . and another sterling example of why we should try, to the extent possible, to keep lawyers out of the warfighting business.

Neo

OK .. now what about "Sealed vs Sealed" ?

Isn't time to clear the decks of the outstanding points of the Flame nonsense.

When will Jason Leopold reveal the source of his story about the (never happened) Rove indictment ?

He has weaseled his way around this and I'm sure he wishes that we all forget that "24 hours to get your affairs in order" BS that he got fed (or made up on his own).

It's time to come clean.

cboldt

-- If you read the actual filing, their point is that the Deputy SecDef signed the appointment "for" Gates. --

... the word "Deputy" is in the "FOR" line before "SECRETARY OF DEFENSE." ... A stamp on the first page of the Ction Memo reads, "DEPSECDEF HAS SEEN," with "GE APPROVES" handwritten in above the date "MAY 8 2007."

and later in the filing ...

Again, the handwritten word "Deputy" appears before the typed "SECRETARY OF DEFENSE" in the "FOR" line. A stamped block on the first page of the memo states, "DEPSECDEF HAS SEEN," with "GE APPROVES" handwritten above the date "JUN 15, 2007" Initials apparently those of Deputy Secretary England appear on the "Approve" line below each of three recommendations: ...

--I'm not sure where it's [Khadr and Hamdan cases] gone from there --

The filing that you read is captioned "Khadr." Same case, most recent step. The military judge in Hamdan hasn't yet answered the motion for reconsideration -- or if he has, ScotusBlog hasn't got wind of it.

Cecil Turner

... the word "Deputy" is in the "FOR" line before "SECRETARY OF DEFENSE."

Ah, okay, I read it as "deputy for" . . . they're saying it's "for the deputy" . . . a bit different then. Looks like a problem, but one that can be fixed with a new letter.

I'm not sure where it's [Khadr and Hamdan cases] gone from there . . .

I meant the future of the tribunals in general, not these two cases in particular. Don't see how they can fix that "unlawful" problem without changing the law, which they're unlikely to get, or some other decision that the statute doesn't mean what it says. Saw somewhere that Congress was planning on hearings, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

clarice

Gag me with a spoon:
"Fitzgerald Deserves Top U.S. Law Post, Comey Says (Update3)

By Patricia Hurtado and David Voreacos
July 20 (Bloomberg) -- Patrick Fitzgerald won the convictions of four Osama bin Laden associates in May 2001. In March, he got Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby. Last week, he nailed Conrad Black.

Fitzgerald, 46, isn't saying what he'll do next in his career. Friends and colleagues say he probably will remain a prosecutor rather than join a law firm. One colleague says Fitzgerald's destiny may include the top law-enforcement job in the country: U.S. attorney general.

``I think he would make a spectacular attorney general,'' said former Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Comey, now general counsel at Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor. ``He certainly is one of the very best federal prosecutors in America.''

Remaining a prosecutor would distinguish Fitzgerald from predecessors in the Chicago post. James Thompson became Illinois governor and chairman of Chicago's Winston & Strawn. Dan Webb succeeded Thompson as chairman of the law firm, whose partners earn more than $1 million a year. Fitzgerald, son of an ex-Park Avenue doorman, makes $145,400. Yesterday, he eliminated one option, telling a radio show host he won't run for public office.

Fitzgerald ``doesn't look at any of these cases as a springboard for something else,'' said David Kelley, a former U.S. Attorney in New York who ran that office's Organized Crime and Terrorism Unit with Fitzgerald. ``He's drawn upon his own innate sense of what is right and wrong.'' "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aiSE8DZT4Avk>Patrick for AG

Sara

Yes Gag!!! Comey as General Counsel for Lockheed Martin, yikes, no wonder I'm having so much trouble.

I found out something last week that floored me. As I've mentioned here a couple of times, I'm going thru a nightmare with the Defense Finance and Accounting system. My Navy retirement checks, since April, stopped. The first explanation was that I'd been declared "deceased." I got that straightened out and finally got my April and May checks on June 6th and 16th respectively. I got them thru snail mail, when they were supposed to go Direct Deposit. Now it is July 22nd and I still don't have my July check. According to DFAS, the check was deposited on July 2nd. However, 9 phone calls and 3 faxes later, it I have discovered that they had a typo on the routing number so no one actually knows where the money got deposited. I now have to go thru the whole process of filing a claim and waiting anywhere from 6 to 9 weeks to get a new reissued check.

So, what did I learn last week? I learned that the Defense Dept. does not handle these matters, Lockheed Martin does. I was given their fax number and told that they are the only ones who can authorize a replacement check. It is the Lockheed Martin Legal Dept. that has control. God save me from Comey!

clarice

Good grief, Sara.Send a certified letter to them with a copy to the Sec Def and your Congressman demanding better service.

Sara

Clarice, I have a letter all ready to go to Daryl Issa's office. I didn't think about contacting the SecDef. I lost it with them on the phone this past Friday and let my temper get the best of me. Afterwards, I thought I must have sounded like a paranoid nutcase, but the problems have been of such a nature that in my frustration, I was beginning to feel targeted. Then finding out that they outsource to Lockheed Martin sent me right thru the roof. I blurted out, "who did I piss off that all these crazy things keep happening?" What is the old saying? Something like just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get you? Comey? Good grief. I'm kidding, of course, sort of, maybe.

Jane

Sara,

Call Comey directly, daily, until someone gets annoyed enough to do something about it. Oh and if you can be nice and friendly that should help.

Sara

Call Comey directly, daily, until someone gets annoyed enough to do something about it. Oh and if you can be nice and friendly that should help.

Jane, you mean I shouldn't say, "Hello, Mr. Comey, I'm the one who thinks you are a sneaky, snake in the grass working to bring down the Administration to advance your buddy Mr. Oh so perfect hair Command Authority and Schmucky Schumer?" Hehehe.

Jane

No, you should call and ask to speak to Comey. That will get you to the legal department. Then you will be asked by a secretary what you want. You should explain clearly and calmly what is going on. Then you should ask who should handle this and when you can expect them to call you back. Make sure you get the spelling of their name and their extension. If you don't hear back, call the next day and ask for them. If they won't take your call, ask who you can speak with. And on and on and on. Eventually the person who is charged with handling the calls will make sure it gets taken care of because they don't want to hear from you the next day.

IMO that would be the fastest way to get results.

Rocco

A little more about NITEL from The Times-Picayune

Jackson had hoped to ink an agreement with Nigeria's state-run telephone company, Nitel. But in the summer of 2005, he got word that Nitel was considering doing business with local telecommunications companies instead. Jackson, documents said, once again turned to Jefferson for help.

On House stationery, Jefferson wrote to Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar, encouraging him to "look into the matter" with the managing director of Nitel. Jefferson also paid a visit to the vice president's home in Potomac, Md., "for the purpose of salvaging iGate's Nigerian deal."

Three weeks later, the FBI raided Jefferson's homes and the home of Abubakar.

Sani Abacha once offered the chairmanship of NITEL to Emeka Offor. From THISDAYOnLine...

Emeka Offor must be a most favoured Nigerian, maybe the luckiest Nigerian in history. Far from being deservedly blacklisted among those who had all kinds of business deals with the very corrupt Abacha regime, he is being offered irresistible jobs, left and right. Offor told The News that the president called and asked him to become the NITEL Chairman because he is one Nigerian who would not touch even a kobo belonging to the public. Like NEPA, NITEL provides basic infrastructure which is at the heart of Nigeria's development. What qualifies Offor to play a central role in the performance of these two critical bodies so much so that the President of the Nigeria has been begging him to accept mouth- watering offers?

Emeka Offor

cathyf
Of course, they reveal nothing about what "covert" could possibly mean in these circumstances, since she was acting in such a way as would reveal her employment relationship to anyone who had an interest.
This is why I think that the Feb 19, 2002 meeting was so significant. What Valerie did/said at breakfast with a reporter, or a party at her house, or even gossiping over lunch in Langley is one thing. That meeting was on paid government-employee time, in a government office, under the supervision of her government superiors, carrying out her assigned job responsibilities. There was no reason for her to tell anyone at the meeting that there was some relationship between her and the guy that they were sending to Niger. There was no reason that she had to be at the meeting at all -- she surely did not have the authority to send Joe without any input with any other CIA employees, and there were several other employees involved at that point, any one of whom could have gone to that meeting to introduce Joe if it was necessary to hide that Valerie had a CIA relationship. The logical conclusion was that it was not necessary to the US Government to hide Plame's affiliation with the CIA on Feb 19, 2002. (And disclosing this on Feb 19, 2002 is, of course, exactly how her affiliation with the CIA became public 17 months later.)

cboldt brings up the instance where the CIA sent a letter to Congress, it was read publicly and entered into the permanent record of the Congressional Record, and yet the CIA is claiming that it is classified. I see the act of letting Plame go to the meeting as the same sort of act -- an official government act of government employees acting under supervision, as opposed to the act of a single employee who might well be acting without authorization.

Bill in AZ

Fitzgerald for AG - Just the thought of having this autistic AG is enough to gag a maggot. He can practice his "jail the victim" scheme on a national scale. Who knows, maybe it will work. Get all the victims off the street and into jail, and perps will have no choice but to turn to honest work. He can try his grand experiment at the same time Hillary is trying her grand socialism experiment (which has been unsuccessful the last 1000 times it was tried).

Rocco

This report by CSIS lists both Wilson from Rock Creek and Kansteiner from Scowcroft. Not that it means anything but it does prove Wilson was working for Aburdene and Alamoudi in Feb 2001.

And how does this report about Sudan compare to one by Refugees International?

lurker

Are the Wilsons still planning to appeal? Someone wondered if they are planning to appeal because where they went before being tossed wasn't the right venue.

Jane

I suspect they know the writing is on the wall, altho my guess is they will appeal for the cash and the publicity. I think they blew the statute, an issue which the Judge did not get to. The Federal Tort Claims Act has, I believe a two year statute of Limitations.

topsecretk9

Gee WHiz....thanks Rocco...

the CSIS link -

2001 Sudan Task force?

Joseph C. Wilson IV
Rock Creek Corporation

He has been running far, far away for a long time.

clarice

CSIS is where M.O.M. was working when she leaked.


The CSIS Task Force on U.S.-Sudan Policy, funded through a grant from the U.S. Institute of Peace (Soros)


(I know Francis Deng fairly well.)

RichatUF

clarice-

There is a federal employment rule that allows SES level employees to sabbatical at think tanks, universities, etc. I can't find the link, will try to dig it up if interested

Rocco-

This little gem right here
//interesting trying to find more baout his career


Legalese

Tanzanite, such a pretty and rare stone

Wadith el-Hage and Mohammed Jamal Khalifa

Here is a little something

graf [from the Blotter link]-

In 2002 O'Keefe, then on the Africa desk of the State Department personally delivered a speech to a gem stone conference in Tucson, Ariz., in which he reportedly said, "We have seen no evidence that al Qaeda or any other terrorist group is currently using tanzanite sales to finance its efforts or to launder money"...

Interesting place this Africa Desk at the State Department

Sue

I'm looking at pictures http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23405399-details/Humanitarian+crisis+as+thousands+face+new+evacuation+alert/article.do>here of people being rescued in the UK from flooding. I have never seen a happier bunch of people being rescued, with the exception of the baby in his pj's.

Sue

Especially the ladies in the ambulance being entertained by the gentlemen. ::grin:: What a country!

Sue

Food and drinking water shortages, panic buying and the threat of looting have followed the worst flooding to hit England in 60 years.

Global warming folks. Worst. Flood. In. 60. Years.

windansea

Ironic that after the scorn that was heaped on the US by the British media following Hurricane Katrina, we can't cope with a thunder storm.

- Dave, Cornwall

hit and run

Sue:
I have never seen a happier bunch of people being rescued

And you remember this pic?

Crowds Panic As Flood Waters Rise In Ireland!!!

Jane

Ironic that after the scorn that was heaped on the US by the British media following Hurricane Katrina, we can't cope with a thunder storm.

Sort of screws with the concept that big government is the answer.

Sue

Crowds Panic As Flood Waters Rise In Ireland!!!

LOL. I had forgotten that picture.

clarice

Powerline reviews the AP(Yost) and the Boston GLobe's (Kuttner) most recent creative factual accounts of the Plame jerfuffle.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010949.php

MayBee

tops and rocs-
Joseph C. Wilson IV
Rock Creek Corporation

He has been running far, far away for a long time.

That has always been one of the weirdnesses about him. Remember when we found his old Rock Creek email address? Yet he made a point to distance himself from the company once he became 'famous'- for no reason that I can think of. Don't his supporters ever wonder why he does stuff like that?

Rocco

Interesting Rich...found this from piasa at Free Republic

1995 : (PORTLAND GROUP : EL HAGE CALLS ZAIDAN ABOUT GEMSTONE VENTURE : ZAIDAN DIRECTS HIM TO ADLOUNI-- see GEMSTONE TRADE) In 1995, El Hage called Zaidan to tell him about the launching of a profit making venture: the sales of an African gemstone called tanzanite. According to El-Hage's attorney, Sam Schmidt, Zaidan told El-Hage he wasn't interested in the business, but he knew someone from Portland who was - Adlouni. Records show that El-Hage had extensive dealings with Adlouni. El-Hage enlisted Adlouni to sell gems in the United States, used his bank account to pay a debt and asked for his help in raising money for an African charity that has been tied to the 1998 embassy bombings. - "Al-Quaida phone trail leads to Portland"

Al Amoudi's MIDROC is into Tanzanite as well in Ethiopia.

clarice

Rocco--AlAlamoudi is into everything in Africa and there are not that many big money things produced there. Does he have some connections with AQ? I think it's unquestionable that he worked with them on a pipeline from Aghanistan at one time, and probably has dealt with them elsewhere. But I'd be astonished if public reports will get you more.

RichatUF

Khalifa+tanzanite

Hawala and gems

Gems and money-laundering

graf-

Federal investigators are conducting raids nationwide on jewelry stores owned mostly by Pakistanis, hoping to break up fronts for terrorist groups or their financial backers, officials said. The raids have taken place over the last two weeks in several cities, including New York, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. About 75 jewelry stores have been raided, a law enforcement official said.
[article from 2002]

Or another reason for AQ Khan to be interested in Africa


RichatUF

clarice-

Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi, Terrorist Banker

graf-

Alamoudi has publicly lauded Hezbollah and Hamas, expressed his preference for attacks that “hit a Zionist target in America or Europe or elsewhere but not like what happened at the Embassy in Kenya,” and was an officer of charities in Northern Virginian tied to Hamas and al-Qaeda. [43] Alluding to Hamas, Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Ward added that “in addition to dealing with Libya, [Alamoudi] has a more direct connection with terrorist organizations designated by the United States government.”[44]

Such crossover between funding for Hamas and al-Qaeda was recently exposed in the case of Soliman Biheiri, the first person to be prosecuted in a massive investigation into terrorist financing in Northern Virginia.(pp.10-11 of the report)

Rocco

Right Clarice...there isn't much out there about Mohammad Hussein Al Amoudi. But Wilson will be forever tied to him through Rock Creek and Elias Aburdene.

clarice

I know about Hussein, but Al Alamoudi is so rich and powerful he got most of the unfavorable press removed after threat of lawsuits and since he left the states---no coverage at all.

Laura

Just one word: Scowcroft. His finger seems to be in every pie.

clarice

Yes, it does..And what Ron COleman says is especially applicable to him, I think:
"Never again” is the Big Lie of the second half of the twentieth century. Tonight, on the eve of the 55th anniversary of the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto, we must be honest: If we knew then what we know now, about the mass killings, the gas chambers, the sick human experimentation, the crematoria — if we knew it were going on right now …

America, and the rest of the world, would not do a damned thing about it.

Indeed, as the official position of the left, including its handmaiden the mainstream press, becomes “we would not have gone to Iraq if Bush had not lied to us about weapons of mass destruction” — however absurd a lie that is — and this is combined with the turning away from events in Darfur, and elsewhere, and essential silence of the “world community” in the face of genocide and mass murder, especially of the despised — the niggers of the world, whether black and Jew or even, if the politics of it is right, Arab — the horrible truth becomes ever more clear.

“We” simply do not care."

http://likelihoodofsuccess.com/2007/07/23/ever-again/

It is to the President's everlasting credit that this is not the man he listens to.

Sara

Cindy Sheehan arrested again by the Capitol Police.

Sheehan and fellow protesters were led away in plastic handcuffs after they refused to heed repeated calls by Capitol Police to depart the office of Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, and a hallway outside his office.
topsecretk9

Yet he made a point to distance himself from the company once he became 'famous'- for no reason that I can think of. Don't his supporters ever wonder why he does stuff like that?

Yes Maybee

Much like his oil deal in Sudan with Jarch - Wilson has sought the insulation from the gullible nutroots so he can be a "can do no wrong" hero while he secretly (or on the down low) does the very thing the nutters typically rail against ---what Wilson does best!.

One of these days Jane Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler will wake up to find they facilitated the biggest rip off of a 3rd world country - a country so vulnerable to the the likes of Wilson... I think it's scandalous territory no lefty has had the balls to question his Sudan profiteering - I mean Jarch threatened a 10 billion dollar legal action against Sudan for loosing the deal for a while??? A Billion legal action? Against that rich country Sudan for not getting the oil deal? COME ON!

----

Rocco

Did you happen to find the link of Jarch - china-Japan managed? I did and found that they were linked to Phillpe - Jarch

Incidentally, did you notice that Jarch is one of the BIGGEST offenders of spam email? So much so there are forums about them? Spammers make millions a day, FYI.

I have the links but I am on vacation right now and will post when I have time to wade through.

Blood.Oil. Hands. and all that...

kim

Ever again, C.

An African USAID specialist might know a thing or two about Alamoudi. I wonder who paid big cash for the hit on Laurence Foley.
========

Rocco

Good Point Maybee

When numerous articles show up bearing Wilson's name and representing Rock Creek Corp, how can he explain it?

ts...No, I haven't seen the Jarch links to China/Japan. Look forward to seeing them when you get back. In the meantime....enjoy!

My initial point on this thread was concerning Marc Grossman and how he claimed he didn't know anything about Wilson or his trip, 23 days after the most prestigious Newspaper in the world called Bush a liar. The guy who testified he was an old college buddy and met socially about twice a year. I think Grossman knew Wilson was going public on July 6 and ordered the INR Memo knowing it was going to be a long flight to Africa on July 7. It was an ambush!

clarice

Maybe. Maybe Grossman just thought it wasn't advantageous at that point to indicate he knew anything unofficcially and that he was a friend of this Administration critic. As I recall he fixed Plame and Wilson up and surely knew she was with the agency.

Neo

Remember this guy ? He was lost in the noise of 9/11.

Judge dismisses Condit lawsuit against Ariz. newspaper headline

Neo

From WSJ:

With the disclosure this week that close aides misused state police in an effort to damage a Republican rival, [NY Governor Eliot] Spitzer is facing the same kind of high-profile scrutiny that he was famous for inflicting upon others -- from Wall Street executives to radio conglomerates -- as New York's attorney general. In a role reversal, the aggressive Mr. Spitzer now is on the defensive and vowing to make amends. ...

While the report by [Democratic] Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that no laws had been broken, it found that a close Spitzer aide schemed to create and give detailed reports to the media showing that Mr. Bruno had been using state aircraft to attend fund-raisers and other political events, rather than for state business as Mr. Bruno had certified. ...

The report found that the governor's communications director, Darren Dopp, and his top liaison to the state police pressured the state police to create, and in some instances re-create, records of Mr. Bruno's use of state aircraft and police escorts.

The report also suggested that the governor's staff gave a false story to investigators to explain why the information was being gathered, saying they were acting on a Freedom of Information Act request from a newspaper.

How can it possibly be the case that lying to investigators and pressuring police to falsify records broke no laws?

Scooter call your lawyer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame