Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Carnival Of Pain | Main | Raw Story - They Got The Day Right! »

December 15, 2005

Comments

Anonymous Liberal

Noah,

Assuming this case goes to trial, the defense can examine this issue. It's not really relevant to any of the crimes Libby is charged with, but I suspect Fitzgerald will nevertheless offer evidence that Plame's status was classified, if for no other reason than to explain Libby's motive for lying. Libby's team will then be free to argue that this is all some plot by the CIA to ensnare Libby. I don't think they'll do that because A) that argument is dumb and 2) they almost surely will not have any evidence to back it up. But if they can pursuasively make that case, more power to them.

Bill in AZ

noah, don't forget the person(s) responsible for creating the fake TANG memos from blank paper. Someone spent a lot of time making them "just so" so that MSM could obfuscate any inconvenient details that might arise from any imperfections. Too bad for the libs the blogs managed to stay a half step ahead of MSM on that one.

We managed to chop through part of the dead tree MSM on that one. This is why this CIA leak story is so incredibly important, even though it is really a nothing story. This is the closest we have come to toppling the MSM-ocracy that has run this country for 40 years.

My guess is that in some basement room at Langley there is a discard pile of practice TANG memos, a discard pile of practice Niger forgeries, and probably a couple of discards of Abu Ghraib CD's.

Now that I have written this, Val in CA, have you called Langley lately to see if that room has been cleaned up?

kim

Of course we think the referral was bogus. We want to know why Andrea Mitchell knew about it, too.

Don't trust Dickerson as the expert witness on memory. He'd be laughed out of court. Or they'd have to hold up the deposition while the reporter recovered her ability to move her fingers.
==========================================

Anonymous Liberal

Noah,
It's not at all clear that the criminal referral even mentioned the IIPA. It may have simply said that Plame's affiliation with the entity was classified and asked the DOJ to investigate the circumstances of the leak. The IIPA is not the only relevant criminal statute. Even if Plame was not "covert" within the meaning of the IIPA, the Espionage Act is still in play. That's the statute Fitzgerald refered to in his press conference. It's likely that the original referral had the Espionage Act in mind.

Anonymous Liberal

Meant to say "agency" in that last post, not "entity." Now that's a weird typo.

topsecretk9

And for the people comparing this to remembering what you had for lunch...please. That's silly. How many times have you been accused of committing a felony for what you had for lunch? And if you were, don't you think you could probably figure out what you had if you thought hard enough about it?

The smartest woman in the world Hillary didn't "know" or 'recall" how many dozens of times before the Grand Jury? Also, the search for the billing records?

Now that is kind of a cheap shot, in a way, but if people were being honest about memory here, that wouldn't be necessary.

kim

And if the Espionage Act is the one they had in mind then Fitz's mandate will include asking harder questions of Joe and Val. They say this man is patient. He may be rolling everyone up from little criminal to big; that is the progression is from White House to MSM to Joe to Dems to Chirac or CIA to who knows whom.

Back to earth. What do you think the referral was for?
==========================================

topsecretk9

Now that's a weird typo.

Anon...something about you that is very endearing!

noah

The argument seems to go around in circles. Prosecution under the espionage act would be ludicrous. Prosecution for simple disclosure of classified material was cast in doubt by Fitz himself as quoted by Jim E.

One wonders about all this dancing around the issue of the underlying crime. Anonymous Liberal does not know nor do I what the legal basis of the referral was. But if that basis was the IIPA and Plame is not covered then the charges should be thrown out IMO. This is not a dumb argument. Nor is it nutty. Institutional pique at the CIA should not be allowed to control the DOJ.

cathyf

AL:

The CIA and other intelligence agencies made that call long before these events ever happened.
...
I'm an attorney...
I call bullshit. A real lawyer would know that it's not the CIA's call. Read the text of Executive Order 13292. It makes quite clear that there are objective criteria for classifying information, and that no matter what "call" the CIA or other intelligence agencies or the tooth fairy make, if the information is not classifyable according to the objective criteria, then it is not classified.

cathy :-)

kim

I agree. He's kind of like someone waking up from a fog. Or an MSM induced delusionary state.
=================================================

clarice

Oh, cathyf, imagine how much havoc there would be if the CIA alone had the right to make that determination! And think how hard I'm laughing that the LEFT is arguing that should be the test!

kim

That's a little harsh. What endears you to me AL, is that you have the knack of frank and free dialogue. My lefty friends have it, too.
========================================

kim

Both of them, my dog and my cat, communists that they are. From each, hah. The snake insists he's impartial.
=============================================

Anonymous Liberal

Did some just call bullshit on me being an attorney? I'm not sure quite how to rebut that one other than saying trust me.

Anyway, regardless of which agency/branch has the ultimate say on what is and what is not classified, the fact remains that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. Fitzgerald surely confirmed that before announcing it to the world.

Secondly, there is no question that the CIA affiliation of a NOC agent is "classifiable" information under any set of guidelines. Indeed it is the quintessential example of classified information in that it's ALWAYS classified. Otherwise, the whole concept of being a NOC woudn't work. You can argue that Plame's NOC days were over and that someone should have declassified her affiliation with the CIA. But that hadn't happened at the time she was outed.

kim

We could have two sets of classified data, one for Democratic administrations and one for Republican ones.

Or maybe Able Danger vs Danger Able.
===============================================

kim

Read again. How could Fitz confirm what is not so? I grant you, he is an extraordinary man.
==============================================

noah

Kim: I am shocked, SHOCKED that you would make a gender assumption!

noah

Didn't NOC Mahle out herself in violation of the IIPA thus endangering her contacts in the ME?

machsplanck

What a huge waste of energy and taxpayer resources! What a morass! Look how Harry Reid is tangled with Val Plame here.

boris

Because of Plame's history as a NOC, her affiliation with the CIA (i.e. the very fact that she was employed by the agency) was classified information.

Since I explicitly stated (11:01AM):

Making the case that where she worked everyday was classified could be asserted to the public based on a CIA claim
Your comment does not refute the point I made, therefore it is you, not I wildly missing the point.

Suppose arguendo the CIA classifies the following 2 items:
(1) VP's status as one time covert agent
(2) VP works at CIA headquarters

And suppose arguendo according to objective criteria suggested by Cecil and Cathy that:
(1) qualifies as classifiable information
(2) does not qualify

Because any PI could discover (2) by following her to work, but (1) is hidden and secret. Therefore what Novak revealed (2) is not prosecutable, what Corn revealed (1) might have been had Novak not made the "classified" information useless. The CIA may claim both are classified for good reason, but objective criteria only cover one.

noah

Linkee no workee.

boris

regardless of which agency/branch has the ultimate say on what is and what is not classified

Did you ever hear the phrase "government of laws, not of men" ???

If where she worked does not qualify as classified according to objective criteria, IT DOESN'T EFFIN MATTER who says otherwise.

kim

We are just accentuating the fact that the referral was bogus, and Fitz is not prosecuting for the suspected acts that prompted the referral.
=================================================

cathyf
I haven't seen anybody serious here calling Cooper a liar. Hell I don't know what anyone would think Cooper has said that would be important enough to lie about.
Ok, I'm exploring the notion that Cooper is lying in his email about his Rove conversation. Just kind of follow along here as I think out loud...

Suppose that

  1. Cooper knew who Joe Wilson's wife was before the phone call, because his wife heard it from her DNC pals.
  2. Cooper believed that Joe Wilson being the hubby of a CIA WMD analyst made Joe an WMD expert, and that the WH was trying to discredit this expert to cover up it's Iraq WMD lies.
  3. Cooper called Rove using the Welfare reform ruse, and the actual conversation is as Rove's email detailed it.
  4. Rove did not tell Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, or that she sent him to Niger.
  5. Rove did not "fall for it" just like Rove's email to Hadley said. He said merely that Cheney's office didn't send Wilson, Wilson is lying about how he got sent, the CIA sent him, it was a boondoggle and nobody paid attention because they knew it was a boondoggle, don't get too far out front on this, Tenet is going to have a statement later. No one has ever claimed that those things were ever classified.
  6. Cooper figured out that Wilson got sent by his wife because he already knew who Wilson's wife was, and Rove's vehemence on the behesting topic.
  7. Cooper sat down and wrote the email to his boss which falsely claimed that Rove told him about Wilson's wife sending him in order to "launder" the information which he got from his (Cooper's) wife.
  8. When Cooper testified to the grand jury about the call, he basically used the same logic as Rove: "I don't remember a lot of details with the call, but here is the contemporaneous documentation, and so this is what must have transpired."
Ok, is this scenario in any way believable? I take it as a given that Cooper did not commit perjury (or at least did not plan beforehand to commit perjury) before the grand jury. After all, if Cooper was going to commit perjury anyway, why would he go to jail rather than testify? Is there any way possible that Cooper removed the cheese from the perjury trap without springing it? Could he really go in there and truthfully answer each question that he was asked, and get away with leaving the impression that Rove told him, without letting on that Rove didn't tell him anything about Wilson's wife? We have been told by multiple reporters of Fitzgerald's stunning lack of curiosity when it comes to reporters finding out about Plame in any way other than direct communication from a White House employee. Is it possible to imagine that Cooper could have driven this big a Big Lie through that gap in Fitzgerald's curiosity?

Or maybe I'm wrong about Cooper's willingness to commit perjury... Before TIME handed over Cooper's email to Fitzgerald, Cooper's best strategy was to keep quiet and hide behind the protecting sources reason. But once the email was handed over, Cooper had to go in and support the lie and try to minimize the damage to himself, his wife, the DNC, etc. (but mostly himself...)

Ok, so how's that for a worthy-of-tinfoil theory as to Cooper lying? Anybody want to help me refute it?

cathy :-)

clarice

Actually, it's enitrely plausible.

Now, let's say that the newsroom talk that V Novak spoke about indicated that Cooper knew about Plame independently of the conversation with Rove....Maybe an offhand remark,"I met her several times at_______"

boris

Cathy,

It's logical and possible. I'm inclined to even say plausible but then I can easily imagine Cooper laundering insider info into a "source". I find Eric's theory remotely possible as well:

reporters were looking to entrap a Bush official for something they, the reporters, already knew - Wilson's wife worked for the CIA
But yours is less nefarious.

Anonymous Liberal

Boris, you write, "Did you ever hear the phrase "government of laws, not of men" ???If where she worked does not qualify as classified according to objective criteria, IT DOESN'T EFFIN MATTER who says otherwise."

"Classification" is not some metaphysical quality that exists independent of human judgment. Information becomes classified because someone, somewhere determined that it should be. And that person was not Fitzgerald.

The bottomline is this: Fitzgerald has stated clearly that Plame's "association with the CIA was classified."

If you are going to insist that Fitzgerald is either lying or mistaken, then cite some source. Anything. Until then, though, forgive me for believing that Fitzgerald is more knowledgeable about this fact than you.

kim

The not falling into the trap supports your version, cf. Maybe that's why he appears to be at Time's gulag researching his future, right now, for his next big story, the court appearance.

What other trap would Rove not fall into but responding to Cooper's mention of Plame or by giving him the name? Sure, there are others, but that one is most plausible. And remember the parsing about the use of names, viz. Mrs. Wilson or Joe Wilson's wife, or Valerie Plame.
==============================================

boris

If you are going to insist that Fitzgerald is either lying or mistaken, then cite some source

Actually I insist that it is you who are mistaken. I have suggested the reason Fitz said what he did is because:

Making the case that where she worked everyday was classified could be asserted to the public based on a CIA claim.
... but that it's not prosecutable because it does not qualify under objective creiteria for determining classifiablilty.

kim

Hey AL, when has Fitz clearly stated that lately?
==============================================

boris

Did some just call bullshit on me being an attorney? I'm not sure quite how to rebut that one other than saying trust me.

I wouldn't trust you to read a clock.

I sure hope that if you really do have clients you can actually figure out what they're trying to tell you.

Anonymous Liberal

What do you mean lately? Fitzgerald said that at his press conference which 1) wasn't all that long ago and 2) was the only time he ever said anything. I wouldn't infer too much from his silence. He's not the talkative type.

Anonymous Liberal

What do you mean lately? Fitzgerald said that at his press conference which 1) wasn't all that long ago and 2) was the only time he ever said anything. I wouldn't infer too much from his silence. He's not the talkative type.

kim

I'll refer you to Boris's point, and to Woodward's disclosure.
==========================================

Jim E.

Maybe the Plame GJ didn't meet this week because Fitz was too busy indicting Conrad Black (isn't he Richard Perle's friend?) in Chicago.

I trust clarice will start a "free Conrad Black" campaign in the near future.

ed

To rebut Boris's last comment, let me just state that in terms of readability, AL has him beat by a pretty good margin.

topsecretk9

Kim -
What endears you to me? everything above
==============================================

topsecretk9

I just don't pull of cryptic well...everything above the dashed line is what I meant.
==============================================

Specter

It cuz Fitz hasn't. And I notice AL made no response to my earlier post that the very next sentence in the indictment after the one about Plame's identity being covert turned out not to be true - so what makes us think anything else in the entire document is? If he can make one huge mistake (i.e. Before the article on July 14, 2003, it was not widely known outside of intelligence....), then why not another? Is Fitz always perfect on everything? Do prosecutors ever bend the facts to fit the bias they have built in to begin with? If you say no they don't, I want to know what you are smokin'.

kim

What are you rebutting? Boris wasn't criticizing the readablility of AL's posts.
===============================================

maryrose

cathyf, Your scenario is both plausible andthought-provoking. I STILL THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO OMIT CERTAIN INFORMATION RATHER THAN CONFESS TO THE ACTUAL FACTS. iIf Cooper was a new reporter on this beat he obviously missed the part where you are not supposed to burn your sources.

Specter

Geez...thinkin way ahead of my typin - I meant the sentence about Plame being classified, not covert.

boris

ed, at 7:40AM I wrote:

Don't know if I can make it any clearer with my limited writing ability.
So we might be in agreement there, however at some point a real lawyer has to make an effort to understand what's being said regardless of literary grace.

ed

His claim that sentances like this :"... but that it's not prosecutable because it does not qualify under objective creiteria for determining classifiablilty." make any sense.

ed

sorry you got it up first.

kim

Thanks above
=======and
Thanks below.

cathyf
"Classification" is not some metaphysical quality that exists independent of human judgment. Information becomes classified because someone, somewhere determined that it should be.
Classification is exactly a metaphysical property, and it is defined in excruciating detail here in Executive Order 13292, and in the predecessor Executive Orders. (The numbers of the predecessor orders are all in 13292, and you can google from there.) Information which satisfies the objective criteria for classification is classified, even if through some bureaucratic oversight or actual malice it never gets marked classified. Likewise, information which satisfies the objective criteria of unclassifiablility is unclassified.
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
  1. conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
  2. prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
  3. restrain competition; or
  4. prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
Plame's relationship with the CIA in 2003 satisfies unclassifiability under Sec. 1.7 (a) 1, 2, and 4.

cathy :-)

kim

Again, ed, Boris was criticizing AL's reading comprehension, not his readability. And AL had the opportunity to read others beside Boris.
===========================================

noah

AL is a crystal clear, logic resistant, confident bullshitter.

Me, I'm just confused.

cathyf

LOL, noah...

boris

ed, ... ok clumsy wording ...

Fitz said what he did because: Making the case that where she worked everyday was classified could be asserted to the public based on a CIA claim ... but that it's not prosecutable ... if where she worked does not qualify as classified according to objective criteria.

Patrick R. Sullivan

" It's not as if you say, 'Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute.'"

I'm guessing this bit of self-justification from Fitzgerald will be rudely contradicted by the Appeals Ct. hearing Martha Stewart's case. And soon.

noah

Which is a refreshing change from Cheez-Wiz.

Dwilkers

"But we're not talking about trying to remember an insignificant document years later. We're talking about trying to remember the existance of a conversation that took place less than week before it's significance became abundantly clear."

AL, no.

He wasn't asked about it a week later. That's one of the underlying problems with your premise. What was the date of his testimony to the GJ about this, and how long in time was it from the Cooper call? THAT is what the prosecution has to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - could not result from lack of memory.

That (your premise) appears to be grounded in a belief that there was something so significant about Novak's column that it gave them the heebie jeebies. But that is also is an assumption.

In other words, you seem to me to have decided there was a (specific) crime and are attempting to fit the facts to that assumption.

Mind you, I'm not saying he did or didn't lie about it. He may have, he may not have - I wasn't there and I don't know. However it is absolutely plausible to a normal human not pre-disposed that Rove is guilty that he forgot about it. His e-mail to Hadley alone has reasonable doubt smeared all over it in red paint.

If I may, you are coming from a before the fact assumption that he is lying, and that appears to color your expectations and conclusions about his behavior.

Anonymous Liberal

Boris, that's not very nice. Ad hom attacks are the last resort of people who are losing an argument. ;)

As for you, Specter, didn't mean to ignore your point. Just lost it in all the clutter.

One, I don't think it's at all clear that Fitzgerald was wrong about his second sentence. Just because Bob Woodward had heard something doesn't mean it was "widely known outside of intelligence circles." He's about as plugged-in as anyone in the country. Indeed, the fact that Woodward didn't know about Plame prior to June 2003 actually supports the conclusion that it wasn't widely known. If it was so widely known, after all, why didn't Bob Woodward of all people already know about it?

More importantly, though, Fitzgerald's second statement is something that can only be learned through investigation. It's an empirical statement. His first point, that the information was classified, doesn't require any investigation. He just hasdto go confirm it with official sources in the government. I'm sure he did that. So even if he is mistaken about point 2, that in no way undermines point 1.

Ed, thanks for the sticking up for me.

Anonymous Liberal

Boris, that's not very nice. Ad hom attacks are the last resort of people who are losing an argument. ;)

As for you, Specter, didn't mean to ignore your point. Just lost it in all the clutter.

One, I don't think it's at all clear that Fitzgerald was wrong about his second sentence. Just because Bob Woodward had heard something doesn't mean it was "widely known outside of intelligence circles." He's about as plugged-in as anyone in the country. Indeed, the fact that Woodward didn't know about Plame prior to June 2003 actually supports the conclusion that it wasn't widely known. If it was so widely known, after all, why didn't Bob Woodward of all people already know about it?

More importantly, though, Fitzgerald's second statement is something that can only be learned through investigation. It's an empirical statement. His first point, that the information was classified, doesn't require any investigation. He just hasdto go confirm it with official sources in the government. I'm sure he did that. So even if he is mistaken about point 2, that in no way undermines point 1.

Ed, thanks for the sticking up for me.

clarice

We know it was widely known outside of intelligence circles--These people told us it was:Andrea Mitchell, Marty Peretz,Hugh Sidey, General Vallely among others.

And then there is the circumstantial evidence indicating that list is verrry long and included David Corn, Walter Pincus and Nicholas Kristof..

clarice

That she wasn't a covert agent, that her employment was widely known and that there was no damage to national security (notwithstanding the presser crap that hs cannot raise in Court) is why I keep saying I cannot imagine Fitz' opening statement.He cannot put any of that in his opening statement--Leaving, exactly what?

Cecil Turner

Said another way: if a prosecutor charges someone with leaking classified information, part of what he's going to have to prove is that the information was properly classified.

I don't know how to access Ballon Juice.

Really? Try clicking here. And coincidentally, a topical discussion about BJ pranksters on other sites (particularly this one). I was rather disappointed with the early outing of NWPHD, since the interaction with other likely trolls was instructive.

Please don't respond to any of my posts.

Fine. You first, please.

boris

Ad hom attacks

Oh that little thang, that you're reading comprehension is so terrible that I wouldn't trust you to read a clock ???

Based on this little straw dummy argument ...

if you are going to insist that Fitzgerald is either lying or mistaken, then cite some source

I never made any such claim. That is your inference of something I did not say nor imply. In fact I suggested a logical reason for Fitz doing exactly what he did.

So you are either dishonest or dim. I'd say both after falsly attributing your crap to my post.

maryrose

On Hardball
atthews is upset that President Bush thinks and says Delay is innocent and wonders why he won't weigh in on the CIA leak case.

Syl

boris

AL is correct. Val's status was classified. The very fact she worked at CIA was therefore classified information.

Period.

Whether it's prosecutable or a jury would buy it is something else.

Syl

Cathy

Your theory is very intriguing.

I've always wondered why Rove said he didn't fall into the trap when he had actually fallen into the trap by blabbing.

It never made sense to me.

boris

The very fact she worked at CIA was therefore classified information.

If it wasn't hidden, protected, and secret then it's "official" classification is irrelevant. Period.

This is a point we've crossed swords on before. Of course CIA workers and government signers of disclosure have to abide the rules and procedures according to official classification. If that's where you're coming from then I understand, but it's not just about prosecution, it's also subject to objective criteria.

noah

Was just over at dailyKos to check out their comments on the election. Cheez-Whiz was there and he was among the nastiest of the bunch. Most of them are restraining themselves because they know the nastier comments are already being widely quoted.

Syl

boris

JUST because val worked at Langley every day does NOT mean her status was not classifiable. There are OTHER classified CIA employees working at Langley. And THAT fact is why the classification rule was made in the first place.

Remember the cafeteria?

We went through this weeks ago.

Syl

boris

If it wasn't hidden, protected, and secret then it's "official" classification is irrelevant. Period.

Irrelevant to the IIPA, not to the fact of classification. Don't mix up the two.

noah

They need to release the CIA referral...at this point it may no longer be classified according to the guidelines quoted earlier. That would clear up a lot of useless speculation.

noah

And I would be less confused.

noah

Clarice...you could file a FOIA request!!

Syl

CathyF

Plame's relationship with the CIA in 2003 satisfies unclassifiability under Sec. 1.7 (a) 1, 2, and 4.

No it does not. Even if she weren't truly NOC at that time, she was under State Dept. cover which still satisfies the classification criteria for her status.

boris

remember the cafeteria?

Yes. You're still doing "official" versus "reality".

Suppose there's an agent between covert ops working at HQ until the next overseas undercover assignment. Revealing that the agent worked for the CIA would "blow" cover, hence IIPA. If the CIA was so lame that the agent was driving to HQ and walking in the front door everyday, the CIA would be SOL regarding prosecution for not hiding, protecting and keeping it secret.

noah

Ping...pong...ping...pong...ping......

boris

Irrelevant to the IIPA, not to the fact of classification. Don't mix up the two.

I'm not. CIA employment considered officially classified needs to be hidden, protected and secret for the classification to hold water under law.

Cecil Turner

. . . which still satisfies the classification criteria for her status.

I think this is very likely true. However, the point is that the criteria must be satisfied . . . it's not simply a matter of having been determined by some official with classification authority, it must have been properly determined.

Syl

CIA employment considered officially classified needs to be hidden, protected and secret for the classification to hold water under law.

You're making stuff up.

Gossip is not considered a reason a priori for declassifying something. Even if classified info is printed in the NY Times, that does not mean that it automatically becomes de-classified.

Foreign agents, when they see something printed STILL look for official confirmation.

Even if it were widely known in journalistic circles that mrs. wilson worked at the CIA, that does NOT mean her status was therefore not classified or not classifiable.

We're taking the wrong approach by attempting to assert that her affiliation was not really classified. It was.

The prosecution is safe on that score, but the defense has a lot to work with and can use many of these arguments to convince a jury.

noah

Supposing for the sake of argument that Plame's status was properly classified. But Fitz has not charged anyone with the crime of leaking her name/status.

No matter how thin you slice the baloney...its still bogus baloney.

boris

Even if classified info is printed in the NY Times, that does not mean that it automatically becomes de-classified.

I'm not making it up! Why deny the existence of criteria for determination? Your example might be "officially" true yet fail to satisfy criteria and be non-prosecutable reagardless of likelyhood of jury conviction.

boris

No matter how thin you slice the baloney...its still bogus baloney.

Yes, you're right. Still this issue must be resolved this very day or Avalon will surely fall to Chaos!

DougJ

Okay, I admit it...I am a LOOOSSER!

boris

SEE I TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN !!!

noah

DougJ...you are a lovable teddy bear compared to a few loons we have come to know recently!!!

Specter

Syl,

I posted a bunch of name earlier that I found simply by browsing around on the official CIA site. Those people work at the CIA. Are their name all considered classified? I think not - otherwise they would not be on the site. Geez.

Specter

AL,

LOL - yes there is a lot of clutter, so apology accepted. But still, a prosecutor is going to make statements that bend or bias their points in official documents - sometimes to the point of bending the truth to make someone look guilty - true or not. Just as a defense attorney will make statements that go the other way - all in official documents. I dealt with classified information for many years. And some of what is considered classified is really stupid.

topsecretk9

noah
Sorry,That was me.

boris

That was me.

LOL seemd to fit.

clarice

Syl--Boris is right. If the classification was wrong--no offense. If the person's employment was well known outside the agency--No offense. If the Agency failed to take appropriate steps to protect that secret--No offense (source:Toensing). Otherwise, we could have people like asshole Wilson revealing this all over the world, but anyone else who said this could be subject to prosecution. A stupid result.


And what is the SP left with?

Pete and Repeat what did you hear?
a heart exposed will sharpen your spear
the hoi polloi can't help but fear
to doubt you
Pete and Repeat, dominoes fall
when you become the fly on the wall
They won't run 'till they've learned to crawl
about you

boris

Merry Christmas !!! Avalon is saved !!!

topsecretk9

Boris
seemd to fit.

Coining a new phrase ---pretending to be someone I'm not to plant lies in my spare time simultaneously whining and complaining that my government lies!

aka- pulling a "DougJ"

boris

Second!

MayBee

About why the CIA asked for an investigation:

Couldn't it be that Valerie, having felt that she was punched in the gut by being exposed this way, walked into her boss's office first thing Monday morning, slapped Novak's article down on his desk and said....those jerks OUTED ME FOR REVENGE! They had no right!

I think they made the referral to satisfy a long-time company employee. And perhaps to placate fellow employees who did not wish the same fate.

As Joe himself said, Valerie's first concern was that people that knew her that didn't know her secret life would feel betrayed by her. I'm sure most CIA agents would like to come out publicly of their own accord, not when it suits someone else's agenda. The CIA, as an employer, would be sensitive to that.

Syl

Specter

There are both classified and non-classified CIA employees. If their status is classified, their affiliation with the CIA is also classified and their names will not be printed on the site.

The names you saw are of non-classified employees.

Clarice

You're confusing IIPA with classified information.

Fitz has not charged the release of classified information because he would have to do so under the Espionage Act, not the IIPA, in this case. Since we don't have an Official Secrets Act that's all he could do and he hasn't even done that.

That it's not reasonable that fitz could charge under IIPA does not mean the affiliation of Val with CIA is not classified.

Syl

Clarice

Otherwise, we could have people like asshole Wilson revealing this all over the world, but anyone else who said this could be subject to prosecution. A stupid result.

I take issue with this. Not anyone else, just someobdy official. Wilson is a civilian. He can say what he wants. (But that he has a big mouth can affect the jury.)

That is not a stupid result. There is a huge difference between official and non-official statements.

clarice

Perhaps you would be kind enough, Syl to show me which language in the IIPA you are relying on. Neither Victorie Toensing nor I believe it is at all applicable. Indeed, because it is so archaic and oddly written, she says the Agee Act was enacted.

And we do not have an official secrets act. If we did, perhaps Fitz would have a point. But we don't and he doesn't.

clarice

CORRECTION--Perhaps you would be kind enough, Syl, to show me which language in the IIPA or the ESPIONAGE ACT you are relying on. Neither Victorie Toensing nor I believe either Statute is at all applicable. Indeed, it is because the Espionage Age is so archaic and oddly written, she says the Agee Act was enacted.

And we do not have an official secrets act. If we did, perhaps Fitz would have a point. But we don't and he doesn't.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

If there is no applicable statute regarding disclosure of classified information - what is the DoJ supposed to do with the "one a week" referrals from the CIA?

Is anyone aware of charges being brought in one of these "one a week" referrals? If so, what was the charge?

BurkettHead

50 USC Section 421, the section of IIPA with criminal penalties, is very clear that it applies to anyone "having or having had authorized access to classified information" (subsection a) or "as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent" (subsection b). Only subsection c, which applies to someone who "in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States," applies if the person did not have authorized access to the information.

If I understand Syl's point, it's that IIPA wouldn't apply to a disclosure by Joe Wilson of Pflame's identity, because he didn't have authorized access to the information (and wasn't engaged in a pattern under subsection c). (subsection 422(d) exempts an agent outing herself from section 421)

I have yet to wade through the Espionage Act. One of these days I might feel motivated enough to do that.

clarice

My understanding is that they prosecuted none or pretty close to none though I cannot know remember where I read that.

I know that early on Ledeen said in an NRO article that the practice when high officials were implicated was that the DCI had a full internal investigation and never passed the matter on to DoJ.

I also recall reading that the matter was never specifically brought to Tenet's attention when he signed the referral letter, that it was just in a stack of pro forma correspondence for him to sign.

clarice

The Espionage Act is completely archaic and deals with things like ship movements, Burkett.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame