We Need A Visionary

On the subject of Karl Rove: Mark Kleiman and the Baseball Crank are narrowing their differences over whether the Espionage Act is a more suitable statute for a prosecution than the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I am sure other legal types are welcome to join in.

Relatedly - there has been speculation in the press and comments from judges suggesting that Fitgerald may be moving on to false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice.  Someone who tackled a primer on those subjects as they relate to the Plame case would (if the wind shifted their way) be cited everywhere forever.

Legal issues, history (How often have special prosecutors invoked these since, let's say, Watergate?) - a noble undertaking.  Just a thought.

Comments

[Seven Machos]

If this ends up a Martha Stewart Deal or a Bill Clinton Deal, where there is no underlying crime but Fitzgerald tries to prosecute ANYONE for false statements, perjury, obstruction of justice, or some procedural crime, then it is FITZGERALD who deserves to go to jail (and compensate the federal government for the taxpayer millions he would have wasted).

Sadly, I suspect that no members of Congress are reading this. But if you are: PLEASE! We need a law that says that if there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME, witnesses can lie and obstruct all they want. I am completely serious.

[kim]

Is Fitz waiting for someone to still make a mistake? There is semblance of the situation when investigators don't quite have a case made and are waiting for the suspect to slip up and reveal a detail he shouldn't have known if innocent.
==============================================

[Geek, Esq.]

The issue of obstruction of justice is pretty clear: if you lie to federal officials or a grand jury and get caught, you're royally screwed.

As I've noted, the #1 area where you're likely to have someone lie is the intent/knowledge area, because it's so hard to prove. "Playing innocent" is the rule, not the exception.

Moreover, politically, it would be catatrophic for a WH official to say "Yeah, I knew her position was classified info related to national security, but there was an election to be won!"

The problem is that there is solid, documentary evidence which, if the WSJ is to be believed, made it crystal sparkling clear that such information was not appropriate for dissemination.

The relevant US code provisions are here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_79.html

As far as Russert vs. Libby and Rove vs. NoFacts/Cooper, it'll be a matter of who's more credible. How sad for the administration that they can't win a credibiility battle with Robert Novak.

[kim]

Geek, Scut: Wasn't the point just made that lie innocent is common, and it isn't WH testimony that is reluctant, it is MSM's.
==============================================

[kim]

In case I was a bit obtuse, my point is that 'lie innocent' has happened and been found out and reluctant witnesses don't want to answer questions about their own or others' lies.
===============================================

[Geek, Esq.]

The problem is that there is plenty connecting the journalists to the Rove and Libby, but nothing leading from the journalists to other possible sources of information.

[kim]

The first part of 'lie innocent' is not even a lie and certainly expresses a denial of guilt. It is: "I certainly didn't do what I'm afraid you think I did", and then it sedulously slips onto the slope of Criminal Untruth.

This smells like the trail Fitz is following. Unless it's the Yellow Cake Explosive Device set to blow up in Rove's face.
=============================================

[kim]

Yes, Geek, Shielder, you have illustrated why TM is suspicious that information is being witheld; there are little in the way of shown links to other sources of information. Do you understand why this seems so much like a set piece against Rove? What are the chances that journalists were only talking to the WH and not also to other journalists?
==============================================

[Seven Machos]

Again, Geek, you post something that is 100 percent untrue. YOu cannot possibly know if there is plenty connecting the journalists to the Rove and Libby. You cannot possibly know if nothing leads from the journalists to other possible sources of information.

I have no idea if your citations are pertinent. I only look up law when I have to. But I must say: you may be the worst alleged lawyer I have ever encountered. Any judge and any opposing attorney would make quick work of you if you actually argue this way in court because you continously state unsubstantiated and unwarranted conclusions and make stuff up as you go along. It's annoying, but funny.

[ArminTamzarian]

Geek:

Still having trouble with basic concepts like elements of crimes, levels of intent, and burdens of proof? I'm surprised you even made it out of your first year. Maybe if you study, you can break out of the basement in your second year.

[BR]

Thanks, TM, for your great http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/i_claim_press_c.html>recent post about what the MSM is withholding from the public and especially the link to the WSJ 10/17/03 article.

While we're awaiting the Coming of the Visionary, here's some late-night delight:

When I came to this part of the article, I had to suppress my giggles over the Inspector Clousseau behavior of those we trust with our national security:

"Officials familiar with the early 2002 meeting at CIA headquarters said intelligence experts were uncertain about what further steps they could take to try to track down the yellowcake allegations…. State Department officials, in particular, felt that 500 tons of uranium was such a large amount that there was no way it could secretly be transferred to Iraq."

What naiveté ! (Is this a result of the Torricelli doctrine – you may henceforth only recruit virgins to the CIA.) Or was it deliberate ignorance? For goodness' sakes, the French company Cogema owns and operates the two Niger uranium mines, according to Wilson himself, as he details his vast knowledge of the Cogema consortium in his 9/18/03 interview by Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.

("Bare" with me, I promise these next few items will lead to a treat after the climax – but you have to stay with me alllll the way…)

Contrary to the lie Vanity Fair Jan 04: "…Wilson does not work for Rock Creek and merely rents space and facilities there", the
Middle East Policy Council Oct 02 page lists him as:
Joseph C. Wilson - Former U.S. Chargé d'Affaires, Baghdad; Strategic Advisor, Rock Creek Corporation

More sexy Rock Creek Corp. info at RogerLSimon and his commenter sleuths' research on Wilson and Rock Creek Corp. already done a year ago in July 04, in an appropriately named post: Heart of Darkness. (Haven't had time to explore positions like in these links, to see if Rock Creek invests in mines or mineral exploration in Africa. Really, I'm not being a tease, I deliver what I promise:)

Oh please, don't stop now… oh, yes, yes….

But Wilson himself said he was involved with gold mine investment in Niger in the Jan 04 Vanity Fair article:

" 'I have a number of clients, and basically we help them with their sort of investments in countries like Niger,' explains Wilson. 'Niger was of some interest because it has some gold deposits coming onstream. We had some clients who were interested in gold.... We were looking to set up a gold-mine company out of London.' "

(I confess I didn't start out making such a long post, but it just kept growing and growing when there was no real satisfaction in the quickie version:) I know, I know, some like to fake it, but that's not the cowgirl way.)

Here's the original, quickie version first, then the reward comes after the climax:)

The Niger govt receives only tax money for their valuable mineral resources. But even those relatively small tax receipts (compared to Cogema's profits) must far outweigh exporting goats. Niger">http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02373.html">Niger officials said (scroll down to article entitled "Niger Denies Uranium Sale to Iraq, Accuses U.S. of 'Libel' ") on 12/22/02 that they only know Niger's uranium goes to France, Japan, Spain. Officially, they're not even in the loop when it comes to controlling what Cogema does. Unofficially, who knows how fat the Swiss bank accounts are or how many are assassinated or coup-de-etat'ed (excuse my French) if they don't obey their French ex-colonial masters at Cogema.

(How funny, the Tehran Times does NOT use anonymous sources; they actually name the Niger officials.)

Oh dear, it got longer again:) Behave yourself, Pinocchio. I'm a lady.

9/18/03 Wilson interview comes up again:

"TPM: And when you say the White House, you mean the NSC?

WILSON: The NSC. I was the senior director for Africa at the NSC during a period of time that was marked by convulsions of Niger's politics, including a coup d'etat, and, shortly after I left the White House, the assassination of the then-president who had had a subsequent coup, to which brought someone else to power. So I dealt with these guys. "

Actually, Wilson's liaison with Niger goes back a long, long way. He was stationed in Niger in 1976-78 on his first State Dept. assignment. Link. And nearby in 1978-1979 – Togo (another ex-French colony); 1979-1981 - U.S. State Dept. Bureau of African Affairs. (Too many affairs going on here – is that why California ex-surfers join the State Dept! Hee, what a bummer to be sent practically to Timbuktu.)

So, back to the ridiculous claims reportedly made by CIA and State Dept. officials (ah, those anonymous sources) in the WSJ: - Mommy, I don't know how to tie my shoelaces and besides, I can't find my shoes…

How easy would it be it for Cogema to divert part of their regular shipment to France… instead… to Niger? As easy as (yellow) cake. (What happened to those sexy liaisons promised between agencies after 9/11? Has the CIA ever heard of a seaport in Benin (another former French colony, between Niger and Togo) where the US Navy discovered uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse? (Thanks to WaPo's superior reporting, they left out the date.)

Even easier, if you have Cotechna on your side. (Swiss-based inspection company implicated in Annan's UN/Oil for Food Scandal. Cotechna has a history of corruption going back to Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan days.

And then there's this on 7/17/03: "The agency [CIA] pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA)." (This is Libby speaking to Cooper. Wonder if that IAEA report was another part of the setup to embarrass the US and UK, so that corrupt French politicians and their minions could continue playing with fire. Can't trust anything you read anymore.)

Hmmmmm… and Plame who has a fiduciary responsibility at the CIA for WMD analysis, said "there's this crazy report"….

(There's a 9-foot long post at JustOneMinute, no, that's crazy, it must be only 9 inches. Where's that darn ruler. I had it in here somewhere with my super-duper-deep-deep-don't tell anyone-covert status tampons.)

****

Ahhhhhhhh, now I can light a cigarette… at last!

___________________

[jukeboxgrad]

BR: "Wilson's liaison with Niger goes back a long, long way. He was stationed in Niger in 1976-78 on his first State Dept. assignment ... "

Nice job destroying a favorite righty talking point, that Wilson was an extremely poor choice for the job, that he had no meaningful local contacts or experience, and the only possible way he could get such a plum assignment is via nepotism.

[BR]

Ah, sweet delights of life

Afternoon Delight
Late-Night Delight
and Turkish Delight...
He has meaningful contacts, all right
And I'm off to my own delight...
Until another morrow, good night
:)

[Truzenzuzex]

Jukeboxgrad said:
Nice job destroying a favorite righty talking point, that Wilson was an extremely poor choice for the job, that he had no meaningful local contacts or experience, and the only possible way he could get such a plum assignment is via nepotism.

I guess some of us "righties" must not be on the distribution list for that particular "talking point". Also, it seems to me nepotism could still be operative despite Wilson's qualifications - he is unlikely to be the only person who had local contacts and experience, and his inteligence gathering background vis-a-vis a CIA operation is likely to have been somewhat less that impressive.

I am sure there were many people at the agency more qualified than him if qualifications are taken in toto. It also seems a bad policy decision, in general, to put the spouse of a "covert" agent on such a high profile mission even leaving nepotism considerations aside. The decision to send Wilson looks to a reasonable observer to be a "political" one from an agency standpoint, whether it actually was or not.

[David]

By the way, as a practical matter, shouldn't a covert agent lose that status when they marry a very public figure?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The issue of obstruction of justice is pretty clear: if you lie to federal officials or a grand jury and get caught, you're royally screwed.'

Lying to a grand jury is perjury. But, after Martha Stewart it's obvious that a clever prosecutor can charge anyone with obstruction of justice over anything.

[Walter]

Another Friday, another leak from the Rove camp trying to create a scenario favorable to their man. Last week the story was that Rove (and Libby) heard Plame's identity from a reporter. Could be true, but there is conflicting testimony from the Press. Today we learn that Rove and Libby were not going after Wilson, but were actually working on a way to back away from the "16 words" uranium claim. Another smokescreen? There may be just enough truth in both stories to give Libby and Rove some breathing room. They will need to come up with something better in order to turn the story around in their favor.

[Dwilkers]

Well. Reading the linked posts I must say its difficult to see how anyone is going to get prosecuted for anything in this case.

[Geek, Esq.]

That NY Times story sure doesn't look helpful to Rove from where I'm sitting.

Well, maybe politically it does. Maybe.

Legally, it's confirmation that Libby and Rove were working together as part of the pushback against Wilson, and it supports an inference that those two would have come across the state dep't memo.

[tommy V]

Perjury is perjury, and if people perjured themselves they need to be charged. It doesn't matter if there was no underlying crime or if it was about sex. It'still perjury.

But you need more than anonymous sources in the papers that rememebr surprising details to bring up perjury charges.

That memo, as it is, is not a lot of help unless it specifies that Plame's status itself is secret. It does not. It denotes a paragragh as (s) that contains Plame's name. That does not mean Plame's satus is uncercover. In a less partisan moment this would not even be a discussion but accepted fact.

What everyone is forgetted is that we are only getting selected leaks from anonymous sources. We are not getting the full story. I am far more curious about what we are not being told than I am about these selected leaks.

There may be more to this, but right now it is clearly a whole lot of nothing that only a political attack dog would love.

Geek, I am now convinced you are a like a pre-teen who pretends to be stupid to drive all the adults crazy.

[Geek, Esq.]

"What everyone is forgetted . . .

Geek, I am now convinced you are a like a pre-teen who pretends to be stupid to drive all the adults crazy."

I am duly humbled.

[Jon H]

"We need a law that says that if there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME, witnesses can lie and obstruct all they want. I am completely serious."

So a murderer could lie and obstruct, so long as there isn't a body?

[Jon H]

"That does not mean Plame's satus is uncercover."

Oh come on. Her identity is marked as secret. If her identity is secret, then she's covert. What else would you call someone whose identity is secret? Batman?

From the Wall Street Journal: "the passage about his wife's CIA role was specially marked "S/NF" -- not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies."

Get a grip.

[Jon H]

David writes: "By the way, as a practical matter, shouldn't a covert agent lose that status when they marry a very public figure?"

Very public? Who heard of Wilson before July of 2003?

They married after he retired from State, so he wasn't even a working diplomat.

[Slartibartfast]

Her identity is marked as secret.

Really? Where?

[tommy V]

"In a less partisan moment this would not even be a discussion but accepted fact."

Jon, her status was not marked secret. This is a fact. It's not something you can change. The paragragh was marked as secret, her name was mentioned with a lot of other information, but her status was not. This does not mean her name was secret, and it certainly does not mean her status was secret. It could still have very well have been (all evidence to the contrary), but the memo mentioned does not point to that. If the paragraph contained the information that the sky was blue, it would not mean that fact was secret either.

Again, this is a fact. SOMETHING in that paragraph was marked secret, but since her status was not mentioned, it was unlikely that. Again, this is a fact.

Again, I repeat, "In a less partisan moment this would not even be a discussion but accepted fact."

The nice thing is this: the investigation knows this. They will get to the bottom of it. You guys keep pretending that you know something you don't. All you know are little tidbits of leaks. You know a small percentage of information, that adds up to nothing. This is "Bush and the Enron thing" all over again.

Rove isn't going anywhere.

Oh, Geek, you caught me on a typo! That's awesome, man! You put me in MY place! I'm so stupid! I made the typo and you caught it. Awesome!

[Jon H]

Slarti, "the passage about his wife's CIA role was specially marked "S/NF" -- not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies."

Note that a paragraph can consist of a single sentence. In the context of a memo about Wilson, the only thing likely to be classified was his wife's identity. And I can't imagine what else would be in that paragraph with his wife's identity, that could require classification.

[Jon H]

tommy: "he paragragh was marked as secret, her name was mentioned with a lot of other information, but her status was not. "

A lot of other information? Such as? Have you any citations which back up the assertion that there was a lot of information in the marked paragraph?

What, exactly, do you think was secret in that paragraph apart from Plame's identity? It's a memo about Joe Wilson and his non-secret trip to Niger. It's quite unlikely that the paragraph would include both Plame's identity *and* something *else* which is secret.

Ockham's razor says her name and connection to the CIA were the classified content in that passage.

[Slartibartfast]

Note that a paragraph can consist of a single sentence. In the context of a memo about Wilson, the only thing likely to be classified was his wife's identity. And I can't imagine what else would be in that paragraph with his wife's identity, that could require classification.

If you think your speculation that the portion-marking guarantees that Plame's name was classified Secret, I suggest you give Fitzgerald a call. Me, I'd want proof.

[Jon H]

tommy writes: "Again, this is a fact. SOMETHING in that paragraph was marked secret, but since her status was not mentioned, it was unlikely that"

Her "status" is immaterial. It can be implied by the fact that it was marked secret. The CIA doesn't have to come out and say "SEKRIT covert agent Valerie Plame". They give their highly-cleared readers credit for more intelligence and discretion than that.

Her name is enough. They don't have to spell it out that she's covert.

[Jon H]

Slarti writes: ". Me, I'd want proof."

Well, if that's what you have to do to maintain your bubble of makebelieve wellbeing, that's cool.

I'm sure Plame's connection to the CIA was only mentioned in a passage of Really Top Secret information about Wilson's links to the Bilderbergers and the reptilian shapeshifters who control mankind from their jewelled subterranean cities.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, if that's what you have to do to maintain your bubble of makebelieve wellbeing, that's cool.

No, I'm just prompting you to provide something, anything to back up your claim that the presence of Plame's name in a paragraph marked Secret/NOFORN means that her name is classified at that level.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, and Secret/NOFORN is not Top Secret. I've had access to LOTS of Secret/NOFORN stuff, so I'm rather comfortable with this assertion.

[Slartibartfast]

Oh, and Secret/NOFORN is neither "Really Top Secret" nor Top Secret. It's Secret, with restrictions on access by foreign nationals. I know, I've seen a ton of it.

[Jon H]

"No, I'm just prompting you to provide something, anything to back up your claim that the presence of Plame's name in a paragraph marked Secret/NOFORN means that her name is classified at that level."

Well, for readers of that paragraph, who are not entitled to pick and choose what level of classification to use for pieces of the paragraph, it would seem that EVERYTHING in the paragraph should be considered Secret/NOFORN.

Unless, that is, they had separate confirmation that the information about Plame was *not* classified. That appears not to be the case.

[Tommy V]

Jon,

I thought the trip to Niger and the report were secret. I haven't read the report myself so I can't say what's in it or what is not in it, or what was being stated as secret or what is not stated as secret.

I do know that, accroding to the leak anyway, the paragraph contained several sentences and the designated (S) was not specific to Plame's name (or Wilson's name, as her married name was used) nor did it even mention that she had covert status.

My point that the leak was very selective in what information it gave us, and the selected information might even make it more confusing that enlightening.

I have to disagree that the problem solving technique of Ockham's Razor would lead one to believe that her status is what is secret if her status isn't even mentioned. Nor do I think it would be wise to make someone resign in disgrace by that same technique.

[Jon H]

"Nor do I think it would be wise to make someone resign in disgrace by that same technique"

Public servants are routinely fired, or put on leave, for far less serious breaches than risking intelligence assets.

[Jon H]

tommy writes: "I do know that, accroding to the leak anyway, the paragraph contained several sentences and the designated (S) was not specific to Plame's name (or Wilson's name, as her married name was used) nor did it even mention that she had covert status."

As I note above, if the annotation covers multiple sentences, it would seem to be the responsibility of the reader to assume it applies to *everything* in the passage, and to treat the information appropriately. Which means they should have checked with the CIA before outing Plame.

That's what one would expect responsible White House officials to do, anyway.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, for readers of that paragraph, who are not entitled to pick and choose what level of classification to use for pieces of the paragraph, it would seem that EVERYTHING in the paragraph should be considered Secret/NOFORN.

Readers of said paragraph, in an unredacted original document, would of necessity know what was classified. It's quite possible that there were other things in that paragraph that merited the Secret/NOFORN portion mark, while Plame's name did not. You're making claims that you cannot substantiate, Jon.

[Jon H]

"Readers of said paragraph, in an unredacted original document, would of necessity know what was classified. It's quite possible that there were other things in that paragraph that merited the Secret/NOFORN portion mark, while Plame's name did not. You're making claims that you cannot substantiate, Jon."

In the absence of highly specific markings, just how would they know?

And I'm still not sure just what additional SECRET/NOFORN information you'd expect to find in a paragraph about Wilson and his wife and her position at the CIA. The possibilities seem rather limited given the topic of the paragraph.

Assuming the annotation covered both Plame's identity AND a second bit of secret information in the paragraph, how exactly would a press hack like Ari Fleisher know what was secret?

Remember, the readers are not intelligence people from INR or CIA. They're political appointees.

[Truzenzuzex]

I still don't get how supposedly covert CIA agent's name and association with the CIA in a document rates only a "secret" classification.

I mean, this is being investigated as a violation of national security, not just the disclosure of a low-level government secret. How can the CIA be worried about the "outing" of a covert agent and only classify a reference to her CIA employment as "secret"?

Am I missing something here? Maybe somebody with more familiarity with classification procedures could comment on why this might be.

[Jon H]

CNN:

"Anything in a paragraph marked 'secret' needs to be deemed secret, and revealing it to someone without proper security clearance or without a need to know is not authorized and is a violation," said Richard Falkenrath, a CNN security analyst who has not seen the memo.

[Slartibartfast]

In the absence of highly specific markings, just how would they know?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because they'd have been briefed on the material?

The possibilities seem rather limited given the topic of the paragraph.

You use that word a lot, but seem to be unaware that it doesn't carry any weight with someone like me, for instance, who actually has experience with this sort of thing.

And I'm still not sure just what additional SECRET/NOFORN information you'd expect to find in a paragraph about Wilson and his wife and her position at the CIA.

They should call you to testify; I have no doubt that your not being sure means something, to someone.

Assuming the annotation covered both Plame's identity AND a second bit of secret information in the paragraph, how exactly would a press hack like Ari Fleisher know what was secret?

How would a press hack like Ari Fleisher be cleared to read it in the first place?

[Jon H]

"Oh, I dunno, maybe because they'd have been briefed on the material?"

You mean, like in a briefing book faxed to Air Force One by State?

[Tommy V]

"In the absence of highly specific markings, just how would they know?"

That's kind of the point in regards to these memos. They usually include a appendum key as to what is specifically confidential. The leak did not contain such information. Like I said, the investigation has full access and knows exactly what information was at what level of classification. We do not.

"Public servants are routinely fired, or put on leave, for far less serious breaches than risking intelligence assets."

I thought the question was whether such things were breached, not what do we do now that we know someone is guilty (mainly because we don't know jack).

I don't know anyone who seriously contends Plame was actively undercover. Not the press, not the CIA... no one. This investigation is about the legal standing of Plame, not whether she was actively undercover and that her public exposure as a CIA analyst was a breach in national security. Please.

[Jon H]

"I thought the question was whether such things were breached, not what do we do now that we know someone is guilty (mainly because we don't know jack)."

It's not uncommon for public servants to put on leave during an investigation into misconduct.

"I don't know anyone who seriously contends Plame was actively undercover. "

I will. Because her cover entangles her with other agents who may be actively undercover.

If we weren't seriously harmed by the disclosure, that's just luck. We could have been. If Karl Rove stepped out in front of the White House and started spraying DC with rifle fire, it would not make things okay if he was lucky enough not to hit anyone.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Rove and company paused to do research into the damage that would be caused by outing her. Nor do I really have any reason to think they even considered it.

[Slartibartfast]

You mean, like in a briefing book faxed to Air Force One by State?

You know, I have no idea how they'd get briefed, but generally when you're working with classified data, there are materials (normally, a confusingly entitled "Classification Guide") that let you know what sorts of things are classified and what aren't. Otherwise, I choose verbs. From now on, verbs: Secret/NOFORN.

[Jon H]

"there are materials (normally, a confusingly entitled "Classification Guide") that let you know what sorts of things are classified and what aren't."

Maybe Ari didn't bother to read it.

[BumperStickerist]

Jon,

this is one of those areas where you might want to consider the opinions of people who've worked with classified material rather than simply looking at a regulation and reading into it.

What Slart's saying is the way it works - anybody who has a clearance knows what elements of the document make it classified. Paragraphs are going to be classified according to the highest level in that particular paragraph. I don't know if 'Valerie Plame working at the CIA' triggered the S/NF or if the sentence after it or the one after that.

The SF312-based rebuttal of 'Well, if in doubt ask the authorizing officer' is a bit of an eyeroller *if* the only thing mentioned in this document is that she's working at the CIA.

Based on what's available there's no reason for the reader to think that - in and of itself - is a Secret/No Forn piece of information. For starters, if Valerie Plame were a CIA Covert op, Former NOC why the hell was this not Codeword classified.

The notion of 'everything in the paragraph must be treated as secret/nf' is off. Whether or not it's true depends on the paragraph, but the concept is easily disprovable.

(S/NF) CIA Agent - WMD proliferation expert Valerie Plame recommended Joe Wilson to travel on a mission to Niger to the CIA-. Subsequently Ambassador Wilson took a trip to Niger. He went to the capital city of Niamey, to meet with its president President Mamadou Tanja.

So, can I talk about Niamey being the capital city of Niger?

Is the identify of the President of Niger part of that S/NF classification?

Obviously, we can. The salient point of that paragraph is Valerie Plame and her role.

Written another way, though, if Plame is simply identified as a CIA employee while the rest of the paragraph contains obviously (s/nf) material. e.g.

(s/nf) Valerie Plame recommended Ambassador Wilson for a mission to Niger to ascertain whether Iraq had attempted to procure yellow cake uranium. Ambassador Wilson reported to Langley Virginia where he was briefed on covert contacts within Niger to assist him in his mission and the means to reach them. Ambassador Wilson was also given two electronic surveillance detection devices. one to carry on his person and one to leave in his room.

In that case, the reader of the document would likely determine that the other information was specific and not releasable to foreign services and, futher, that the name of the CIA person involved was not classified.

The point being that myopic - "But it says here" {link} - is simply not the way this stuff works. "

That said - if the full paragraph makes it clear that Plame was the reason for the security classification, and/or Rove lied to the grand jury - fry him.

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe Ari didn't bother to read it.

Well, then. If a) Ari read the unredacted INR memo, and b) Ari leaked Plame's ID to the press, and c) Plame's ID was indeed classified, then Ari probably needs to go to prison for a bit. Now, this is a little confusing, you revolving slowly back and forth between Rove and Fleisher, so it'd be best if you settled on a story. But whatever your story is, you need to show all of the above are true, and I'm not sure you even have one of them nailed down.

[Tommy V]

"I will. Because her cover entangles her with other agents who may be actively undercover."

Jon, I said "seriously contends".

I don't think you're seeing this very clearly, nor do you have any interest in fairness or the truth.

If Rove was the target of the investigation I do not think it would be a bad idea for him to step away. But he is the target of the coverage, not the investigation, which are two entirely different things.

You consistently state things that are huge leaps of logic. You have clearly started with Rove is guilty and are working your way back. It's not an interesting perspective to have a conversation with.

[Jon H]

"But whatever your story is, you need to show all of the above are true, and I'm not sure you even have one of them nailed down."

And yet, Slarti, the ball has not moved a single millimeter in the direction of "she wasn't covert". Not an angstrom. It definitely has been consistently moving against the White House.

[Jon H]

Tommy writes: "But he is the target of the coverage, not the investigation, which are two entirely different things."

He's not a target *at the moment*. He is most definitely a subject of the investigation, which means the prosecutor may make him a target should circumstances support such a move.

He's definitely under suspicion. He's not just a witness.

[tommy V]

"And yet, Slarti, the ball has not moved a single millimeter in the direction of "she wasn't covert". Not an angstrom. It definitely has been consistently moving against the White House."

Are you serious? This is a complete denial of all available evidence.

This is from the legal brief by THE NETWORKS when they were trying to protect their reporters.

"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. ... [T]he CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."

This is from the lawyers repping ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox, Gannett, NBC, Reuters, AP, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, as well as others.

[Jon H]

tommy writes: "This is from the legal brief by THE NETWORKS when they were trying to protect their reporters."

Er, so what? They don't have access to the CIA's files. This brief is just assertion without proof, in a desperate bid to avoid establishing precedent in court over a first amendment issue.

It's funny seeing the GOP point to the dreaded, terminally flawed, distorting, dishonest, biased MSM for evidence in support of their boys.

What's next, will they be saying the MSM brief was "fake but accurate"?

[Slartibartfast]

And yet, Slarti, the ball has not moved a single millimeter in the direction of "she wasn't covert". Not an angstrom. It definitely has been consistently moving against the White House.

Prove to me you're not the queen of the space unicorns. Just prove it.

Otherwise known as, in this country at least, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[Slartibartfast]

It's funny seeing the GOP point to the dreaded, terminally flawed, distorting, dishonest, biased MSM for evidence in support of their boys.

tommy's the GOP? Who knew?

[Tommy V]

"Er, so what?"

Really, that's how you explain that away on whether she was covert ornot? And then start the bashing the GOP?

Jon, I'm afraid you're just not on solid ground here. No fair minded person could come to the conclusions you do. Your credibility has reached Joe Wilson proportions.

[Jon H]

"Really, that's how you explain that away on whether she was covert ornot? And then start the bashing the GOP?"

Look, they're not the CIA. Or the DOJ. The media knows far less than the prosecutor. Therefore, their opinion in the brief is meaningless. They are not the ones empowered to determine what laws apply.

That brief you cite is little more than an opinion, based on assertion. I could write a brief that would be just as substantive. Because the media companies know very little more than *I* do.

I'm not sure why you think it's so definitive. Do you think they have the CIA files on Valerie Plame showing where she's worked undercover between 1998 and 2003? They don't have that information. If every media organization on Earth signed the thing it wouldn't carry any weight.

I've heard of people being tried in the media, but this is ridiculous. Now you're trying to insist that the media itself is judge and jury, that the opinion of a bunch of editors and publishers somehow carries any weight in the judicial system.

"Jon, I'm afraid you're just not on solid ground here. No fair minded person could come to the conclusions you do. Your credibility has reached Joe Wilson proportions."

Okay, now you're into ad hominem argumentation, which means you're losing and you're trying to make an orderly retreat rather than running away and losing face.

[Tommy V]

Jon,

You're missing the point entirely, and I do believe delbrately so (ad hominum argumentation).

You are right that the press did not have access to CIA files. This is absolutely correct.

And that is the point.

The brief makes it clear that one did not need access to CIA files to know she worked for the CIA because she traveled there to work everyday and the CIA made no attempt to hide her employment there or even take the most rudimentary (and standard) procedures to block publication of her name and employment. In other words, she was not actively covert.

As for your other stuff...

"bunch of editors and publishers somehow carries any weight in the judicial system... I've heard of people being tried in the media, but this is ridiculous... you're losing and you're trying to make an orderly retreat rather than running away and losing face."

Jon. This is just not strong material. Do you really want to go on? You might still get Rove yet, but I don't think you'll get him on this one.

Don't worry, you've got three more years. A lot can happen in three years.

[Jon H]

"The brief makes it clear that one did not need access to CIA files to know she worked for the CIA because she traveled there to work everyday and the CIA made no attempt to hide her employment there or even take the most rudimentary (and standard) procedures to block publication of her name and employment. In other words, she was not actively covert."

The media does not know what the CIA was doing. The CIA does not know what their standard methods are. The media does not know Valerie Wilson's travel records for 1998-2003, so they are forced to rely on false Republican claims that the IIPA would only apply to someone on a long-term assignment, which is nonsensical on its face (nor does such language appear in the law).

The commuting to Langley thing is bogus, first of all, because there are plenty of intelligence personnel who work at intelligence agency buildings in the US, who conceal their employment. The NSA won't even let anyone *count* the number of employees who drive into their HQ parking lot.

The case is going to hinge on all of this information. The media are not capable of trying the case on their own, because they lack this information.

We hear that "everyone knew" she was CIA, but if everyone knew, why didn't anyone say so until someone in the administration told Novak?

Either nobody knew, or the entire DC press corps managed to hold their tongues and not run with a juicy scoop.

[Tommy V]

"why didn't anyone say so until someone in the administration told Novak?"

We don't know who told Novak. The only testimony we have is that Novak knew before he called Rove, and we don't even know how true that is.

And to answer your question, the reason why this so-called scoop came out about Plame is because Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. It was not considered information or a "juicy scoop" until then.

And someone who drives to Langley on a daily basis is by definition not on active cover.

And my favorite...

"The media are not capable of trying the case on their own, because they lack this information."

Strange, you seem to feel you know plenty of information. Information that you got from the media. Your argument is running in circles now.

This is just getting silly.

[Jon H]

"Strange, you seem to feel you know plenty of information. Information that you got from the media. Your argument is running in circles now."

I know that there are things I don't have, and the media don't have, which the prosecutor does have. Are you claiming the media has all the facts?

[Tommy V]

"I know that there are things I don't have, and the media don't have, which the prosecutor does have. Are you claiming the media has all the facts?"

Funny, you have shown little patience for this information before. But now as you have been contradicted in your assumptions, we come full circle, back to my point.

Jon, this is why you shouldn't argue just to argue. You will eventually lose track of what you were previously arguing.

My words earlier:

"What everyone is forgetted (sic) is that we are only getting selected leaks from anonymous sources. We are not getting the full story. I am far more curious about what we are not being told than I am about these selected leaks."

"There may be more to this, but right now it is clearly a whole lot of nothing "

"The nice thing is this: the investigation knows this. They will get to the bottom of it. You guys keep pretending that you know something you don't. All you know are little tidbits of leaks. You know a small percentage of information, that adds up to nothing. This is "Bush and the Enron thing" all over again."

I only know what the media tell me (including blogs). And right now, that ain't much. It's been a long road to get you to see it my way, but I think it was worth it.

Thanks, it's been fun talking.

[jukeboxgrad]

TRUZ: "I guess some of us 'righties' must not be on the distribution list for that particular 'talking point'"

You seem to be suggesting I made it up (that a major talking point for the right is to suggest that Wilson was unqualified for the job). On the contrary. Here's a nice example: "Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged" (link).

"nepotism could still be operative despite Wilson's qualifications"

Yes, and puppy-torture could still be part of the daily White House routine, even though Scottie would surely deny it if we ask. What's the point of making libelous accusations without evidence to back it up?

"I am sure there were many people at the agency more qualified than him ... bad policy decision ... The decision to send Wilson looks ... to be a 'political' one from an agency standpoint"

A little reminder. This was Tenet's shop at the time. Bush gave Tenet a medal. Please explain why Bush is handing a medal to someone who runs such a messed-up shop.

"How can the CIA be worried about the 'outing' of a covert agent and only classify a reference to her CIA employment as 'secret'?"

The memo was written by someone from State, not CIA.

[jukeboxgrad]

TOMMY: "thought the trip to Niger and the report were secret."

I don't know about "the report" (btw, Wilson never created a written report). The trip was not secret (read Wilson's oped).

"This is from the legal brief by THE NETWORKS when they were trying to protect their reporters."

You're overlooking a very important fact about that brief: it didn't work. The judges rejected it. That's why Miller is in jail. If the judges did not find those arguments convincing, I don't know why you would.

"Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger"

Nice job repeating a talking point that is itself a lie. I explain this here and here. If you can provide facts to back up your specious assertion, that would be great. Otherwise, you're full of it.

BUMPER: "The SF312-based rebuttal of 'Well, if in doubt ask the authorizing officer' is a bit of an eyeroller *if* the only thing mentioned in this document is that she's working at the CIA."

You seem to be suggesting that a reasonable person would find it safe to assume that a person working for the CIA is not covert (in the absence of more specific information one way or another). Did I understand you properly?

[Tommy V]

Juke,

Thanks for the .pdf. But you left this part out. This would be the substantial difference you were asking for.

"Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip."

She referred to the report as "there's this crazy report" (also from your .pdf. Thanks!!) which clearly implies a specific intent for his mission. You left that part out, too.

You also left this part out "Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the
Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal".

Wilson failed to mention those other parties in the inquires as well, once again, drawing a closer link to Cheney than was necessarily accurate.

Why? Because the closer his mission was to Cheney's office, the more embarressing for the administration. (even though, what he said to have NOT found did not contradict what the administration said in the state of the union address).

You're right that Wilson did not say specifically say n his op-ed that Cheney sent him. I do stand corrected on that. I will heretofore say that Wilson implied by association that his trip was asked for by Cheney's office, when it clearly was not.

This implication is why the press corps, after reading the op ed, took from it, ike many others did that Cheney had sent Wilson. So much so that they asked Cheney's office about it. Some even inquiring why would Cheney send an ideological opponent on such a mission? (And why Wilson lied that his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment.)

You can rest on the fact that he did not say specifically Cheney sent him. I don't. His implication and the conclusion he wanted us to draw was quite clear.

This sounds like another conversation about what the meaning of "is" is.

[jukeboxgrad]

You posted this twice. I answered you here.