In Which We Usher Larry Johnson Into February 2007

Larry Johnson discredits himself - he ought to keep a civil tongue when speaking of his betters.  He also ought to end his campaign to confuse the media:

Congratulations to Victoria Toensing, former Reagan Administration Justice Department official, for plumbing new depths of delusion and crazed fantasies in her latest Washington Post op-ed.  Ms. Toensing's piece--Trial in Error--should have been titled, "I Am Ignorant of Basic Facts".  She offers up two special gems:

• Valerie Plame was not covert.
• Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Valerie's husband) misled the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status

Mr. Johnson engages in histrionics but never addresses the substance of Ms. Toensing's point about whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Her point is simple - the IIPA has several requirements a CIA agent must meet to be covered under the statute, i.e., "covert":

(4) The term "covert agent" means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or...

This is not complicated - a CIA officer could have classified status without being "covert" under the statute, simply by having failed to meet the service abroad requirement.  As to whether Ms. Plame met that requirement (and just what that requirement might be), no evidence has been introduced at this trial to resolve it.  However, the gist of the dispute is simple - Joe Wilson's proponents, such as Larry Johnson, insist that "service abroad" can be as simple as flying overseas on official CIA business; Ms. Toensing argues that "service abroad" requires a specific overseas posting.  This post notes that other laws make such a distinction, and I was a bit wistful here:

First, if Ms. Plame had been a covert geologist, this issue would be settled - from the US Geological Survey manual:

D. Service abroad means service on or after September 6, 1960, by an employee at a post of duty outside the United States and outside the employee's place of residence if that place of residence is a territory or possession of the United States.

Of course, that is merely suggestive.  I do have a specific proposal on the Plame situation, however - per this law, CIA officers get an upward adjustment in their pension for service abroad.   Although I assume that specific time and place details of Ms. Plame's service record  may be classified, it *may* be possible for  her pension record to be reviewed by someone with credibility on both sides of the aisle (I nominate Jeralyn Merritt) to see whether she received credit for service abroad in the five years preceding June 2003.

In addition to his inability or unwillingness to comprehend and address Ms. Toensing's basic point about the distinction between "covert" and "classified", Larry Johnson reveals a failure to follow along at the Libby trial.  For Mr. Johnson's edification, a high-speed introduction to February 2007 - let's hope he updates his talking points.

On the subject of Mr. Libby, Johnson wrote this:

She also is ignoring the facts introduced at the Libby trial.  We have learned that Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage told various members of the press that Valerie worked for the CIA.  In fact Scooter Libby was the one who told Bush press flack, Ari Fleischer, about Valerie's covert status.

Libby told Ari Fleischer, and that is a "basic fact"?  That "basic fact" is very much in dispute - Ari Fleischer also said he leaked to John Dickerson but not to Walter Pincus; both men disagree with Ari's recollection, as does Libby with respect to what he told Ari at their lunch on July 7.

And Mr. Johnson is behind the times here:

Let's take up a collection and get Victoria some help with her obvious reading disability.  The whole sordid affair got started in early February 2002.  Vice President Cheney asked his briefer about the claim on 12 February 2002 and the CIA convened an interagency meeting with Ambassador Joseph Wilson one week later, February 19, 2002.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Johnson does not need to use the phrase "reading disability" until he chooses to write an autobiography - here is a defense exhibit introduced at the trial, as flagged by Byron York.  The gist - the DIA circulated a report on Feb 12 arguing that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger; in response to inquiries from the INR and the DoD (and perhaps on instruction from her superiors), Ms. Plame wrote a memo on Feb 12 endorsing/suggesting the notion that her husband go to Niger so that the CIA could have an official response.

And (per the new defense exhibit) Cheney met with his CIA briefer and had questions about the DIA report on Feb 13.  There is a certain logic to this, since Cheney's CIA briefing  is normally first thing in the morning, and Cheney (or his staff) would not have gotten to the DIA report until later on the 12th.

My guess - if they are like any other bureaucrats in the world, the CIA did a bit of name-dropping and told folks that the Vice President was interested in this trip.  This was arguably true, based on his questions of Feb 13, even though it is clear from the new timeline that his questions did not *initiate* the trip.

If Mr. Johnson could update his talking points, that would be lovely.

MORE:  My goodness, does Larry Johnson even read his own posts?  Evidently, reporters are slowly catching on to the distinction between "covert" and classified"; Johnson puts on his bright red nose and floppy shoes and tries to confuse the issue in a new post, but he only manages to embarrass himself and annoy me:

Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert.  The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover".  So here's my gift to confused journalists.

A noble undertaking.  Johnson cites the same bit of the IIPA we have excerpted above, and then fails to read it!  Here we go:

There are two types of people who work at CIA.  First are the "overt" employees.  These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee.  Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged. Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee.  At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA.  Zippo!

The remaining category of employee is covert.  Covert employees include people who work under "official cover" and people who work under "non-official cover".

"[T]wo types of people who work at CIA"?  Fine, but the two types would have to reflect "classified status" and "non-classified status".  As Johnson would note if he read the statute he excerpted, an officer with classified status who has not served abroad in the previous five years is not "covert" under the statute, regardless of whether they are a "NOC", and regardless of whether they have classified status.

I propose my own dichotomy - there are two types of people in the world: those who think Larry Johnson is a partisan hack, and those who think he is a hack.

MORE ON THE IIPA:  Folks with access to the Times archives should check the legislative history of the Act for a real laugh.  More after the break.

The Act could not be passed in the late 70's under Jimmy Carter; following Reagan's election (along with six new Republican Senators), folks tried against in the early 80's.

The NY Times and other media, as well as civil liberties and free speech advocates, fulminated against the Act.  One of their fears was that the press, or private citizens, would be exposed to "gotcha" prosecutions.  From the Times: 

Unfortunately, to cite a case in The Times's experience, being careful doesn't help decide how to deal with former spies like Edwin Wilson and Frank Terpil. 

The Times put together - carefully - stories about how the former agents trained terrorists abroad and engaged in suspicious weapons and technology deals. The stories raised questions about the former spies' connections to the Central Intelligence Agency, whether real or feigned.

At a minimum, these foreign adventures challenged the country's ability to avoid embarrassment by once-trusted employees. The stories brought about other investigations, by Congress and the C.I.A. itself.

But it doesn't seem to matter how much care went into those stories. It doesn't matter how much they have been supported by official investigations. None of that would protect the paper against a wrathful prosecutor armed with the pending bill.

And based on the history of the problem underlying the bill, it was clear that the problem was with CIA agents *stationed* abroad - this is from the court decision lifting Philip Agee's passport:

Philip Agee, an American citizen, currently resides in West Germany. From 1957 to 1968, he was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency. He held key positions in the division of the agency that is reponsible (sic) for covert intelligence gathering in foreign countries. In the course of his duties at the agency, Agree received training in clandestine operations, including the methods used to protect the identities of intelligence employees and sources of the United States overseas. He served in undercover assignments abroad and came to know many Government employees and other persons supplying information to the United States. The relationships of many of these people to our Government are highly confidential; many are still engaged in intelligence gathering.

In 1974, Agee called a press confeence (sic) in London to announce his ''campaign to fight the United States C.I.A. wherever it is operating.'' He declared his intent ''to expose C.I.A. officers and agents and to take the measures necessary to drive them out of the countries where they are operating.'' Since 1974, Agee has, by his own assertion, devoted consistent effort to that program, and he has traveled extensively in other countries in order to carry it out. To identify C.I.A. personnel in a particular country, Agee goes to the target country and consults sources in local diplomatic circles whom he knows from his prior service in the United States Government. Agee and his collaborators have repeatedly and publicly identified individuals and organizations located in foreign countries as undercover C.I.A. agents, employees, or sources. The record reveals that the identifications divulge classified information, violate Agee's express contract not to make any public statements about agency matters without prior clearance by the agency, have prejudiced the ability of the United States to obtain intelligence, and have been followed by episodes of violence against the persons and organizations identified.

So, it was agents stationed abroad that had two problems - they were identifiable by the locals, and they were not always subject to the police protection of a sympathetic government.  A CIA officer based in the US would not have these problems.

FWIW, Gary Hart of CO was one of the Senators voting against the IIPA on civil liberties grounds; he now supports the Fitzgerald investigation.  Times change and the political winds shift.  No problem.

LAST GASP:  If a THOMAS sleuth could scratch into the Congressional record, something more helpful might be available.  Hints to the legislative history are in this CRS paper prepared on Oct 3, 2003.  The lead, to aid Googlers:

In 1982, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was enacted into law as an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947. This Act was a response to concerns of members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and others in Congress “about the systematic effort by a small group of Americans, including some former intelligence agency employees, to disclose the names of covert intelligence agents.”

Help!

Comments

[MayBee]

Do I dare mention the transition?
Hadn't Valerie been "transitioning" for 7 years or so?

[Tom Maguire]

I have a post on this comical EmptyWheel interview in Raw Story that is so vicious and mean-spirited that it makes this Johnson piece look like a Valentine's greeting.

Still a draft, but this may be a "Die Hard" series - if Libby is going down, I may as well annoy a few others on the way out.

[MayBee]

MW: I don’t think I should say. It’s court personnel stuff. If nothing else, there may be another charge for Libby that he’s lying about the NIE.

So court personnel are leaking to EW now? Uh oh. Sounds like a leak of classified information, and an introduction to the cocktail weenie circuit. Who will write the book on that?

[Pete]

Nobody (not Victoria Toensing, nor Tom Maguire) has shown that Plame was not covert.

The very fact that the CIA referred this case to the DOJ means that they believe that Plame was covert. Ashcroft (who insisted on being briefed on intimate details of this case) would have killed this case in a heartbeat had Plame not been covert. Are we to believe that Ashcroft conspired against the White House? Incidentally the looney article by Toensing even goes on to say that Ashcroft should be charged, and for a moment I thought that she would say that Bush should be charged for allowing the case to proceed (but that would have interfered with the pardon).

Isikoff and Corn detail in "Hubris" the covert work done by Plame in Jordan in 2002. The spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law should apply to the covert work done overseas by Plame within 5 years of being exposed.

If Ms Toensing wanted to say stationed then she really should have written the word "stationed" in the IIPA law. From a practical purpose, an agent who was stationed abroad and an agent who did work abroad by making overseas trips deserve the same kind of protection.

[Ralph L.]

"but he only manges to embarrass himself and annoy me,..."
I believe his problem is more than skin-deep.

[MayBee]

Isikoff and Corn detail in "Hubris" the covert work done by Plame in Jordan in 2002.

So you think Jordanian intelligence called an energy consultant from the US to come look at Iraqi aluminum tubes with them, so they could give information back to the CIA?
Does that really make sense to you?
Or do you think she went over there as an intelligence agent working with other intelligence agents?

[Jeff]

Victoria Toensing proved herself to be an entirely impartial commentator, just a Washington lawyer, in her WaPo chat yesterday, which was hilariously entitled

Outlook: Libby Trial Participants Indicted by Association

which was, I believe, supposed to capture the gist of Toensing's piece in the Post on Sunday.

The first question made a funny observation:

Washington: You were sitting at the defense lawyers' table at this morning's session of the trial, were you not? Does that mean you are part of the defense team? Shouldn't that have been mentioned with your Outlook article?

Victoria Toensing: I'm not a part of the defense team -- there was an overflow, we were in the overflow room and lawyers can sit at that table. There were other lawyers there who were not part of the defense team, like Jake Stein.

Ah, that explains it.

I have yet to see Toensing cite a single piece of actual legislative history - as opposed to her own secret legislative history - of the statute, or any existing precedent, to support her interpretation of "service". That being the case, it seems impossible to credit her claim that everybody should know no violation took place - since the interpretation would have to be worked out in litigation, and especially since Fitzgerald himself has made clear that he holds a different interpretation of the revelant portion of the statute.

Toensing also appears to remain blissfully unaware of something that Fitzgerald made perfectly explicit to Libby at the beginning of his grand jury testimony - that the possible violation of several statutes beyond IIPA was under investigation. Toensing evidently does not like that fact. But it's pretty clear that her personal dislike does not carry a lot of weight on the facts.

[Pete]

And one more point on Toensing.

Since she prides herself as the ultimate authority on the IIPA why did she not write an article in Sept/Oct 2003 stating that the IIPA could not have been violated?

[sbw]

Can someone list any mainstream media that have not yet dropped Larry as a commentator?

[mastour]

A few quick questions for the moonbats.

What was this investigation about?

Was the SP able to determine if the elements of the crime being investigated were met?

If so, by whom?

If not, why are we here?

[Ralph L.]

Pete first developed a respect for the honesty of the CIA, and now the rectitude and courage of Ashcroft. Can the end of BDS be far behind?

[royf]

But it's pretty clear that her personal dislike does not carry a lot of weight on the facts.

Well jeff since its all about protecting NOCs you still haven't answered my question from a couple of days ago.

Should Kerry be investigated and procecuted for leaking the CIAs chief intelligence officers name during a "open" Senate hearing on John Bolton. Since its all about saving the "girl on the beach".

You gave me some lame*ss answer about Kerry being a klutz, but that doesn't protect the girl.

[MayBee]

My guess - if they are like any other bureaucrats in the world, the CIA did a bit of name-dropping and told folks that the Vice President was interested in this trip.

Keep in mind that Libby said Wilson wouldn't have been told through official channels that Cheney had asked the question that sent him.

Which makes sense, because you wouldn't want an outside consultant to let his opinion of the VP color the way he presented what intelligence he'd gathered. And you wouldn't want someone to feel pressured to report what they'd found a certain way because the intimidating VP was asking about it.
It is especially funny, because I believe the Wilsons were at the heart of the complaints that a/some CIA agent(s) had made to the press that Cheney was pressuring them to color the way they presented the intelligence.
Wilson himself later made this allegation against Cheney and Hadley.****

Soo...Wilson "thinking" Cheney sent him was quite convenient. It just happened to confirm something his wife was telling the press.

(***Craig Schmall told Cheney he'd asked several CIA employees, and they felt there had been no pressure applied to them)

[lurker]

Funny...

Fitz did not charge Libby for leaking Plame's identity.

Plame had been parking her car in the parking lot next to the CIA building. According to IIPA, this makes her NON-covert.

She had not been overseas for five years. According to IPPA, this makes her NON-covert.

More examples to confirm her NON-covert status.

[Appalled Moderate]

Stop the madness!!

[Feedup]

With some of this logic, everyone in Congress should be in jail for leaking....

And I wouldn't have a problem with that since most are useless.

[Pete]

So you think Jordanian intelligence called an energy consultant from the US to come look at Iraqi aluminum tubes with them, so they could give information back to the CIA?
Does that really make sense to you?
Or do you think she went over there as an intelligence agent working with other intelligence agents?

The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

Plame qualifies.

[MayBee]

Is there some reason Victoria Toensing should have pretended to be impartial? Is there something wrong with being partial?

[Sue]

Is there something wrong with being partial?

Only if you support a republican.

[lurker]

Also, what's funny is that Wilson and Plame attended that early May 2003 Democratic convention. Covert agents do NOT attend public events.

[MayBee]

pete, did you miss that 'and' between (i) and (ii)?
Do you really think Jordanian intelligence didn't know they were working with a US intelligence professional when Plame went over for a few days to help solve an intelligence dispute?
Do you really think Jordanian intelligence thought they were dealing with an energy consultant?

[lurker]

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

Plame has not been serving in a real job overseas within five years. She was merely on travel. Does not qualify.

[Jeff]

Is there some reason Victoria Toensing should have pretended to be impartial? Is there something wrong with being partial?

Don't you by your own vaunted principles think that Toensing should have disclosed her close relationship with the defense when she published? It's not that she should have pretended to be impartial; it's that she did.

[Feedup]

Lucker,

It would only be a no no if she had attended a Republican convention. Must remember there are 2 sets of rules.

[lurker]

Toensing would've signed something or received permission from the government to publish this.

[royf]

Plame qualifies.

Well pete why wasn't Armitage brought before the GJ which was allegedly investigating that leak of a covert agent?

[Sue]

Valerie Plame...the Jennifer Garner of Larry Johnson's world. Able to disguise herself so perfectly that no one, anywhere, has come forward and said...hey, I know her, she was pretending to be an energy consultant. I wonder if she wore a red wig or was a brunette? What color were her contacts? Brown?

[Chris]

Didn't the people who actually wrote the law write articles say specifically Plame WAS NOT covert and the law as it was written was not violated?

Regards,
Chris

[MayBee]

Jeff- I think reporters should have to disclose their close personal affiliation with the democratic party when they publish. I think that Wilson's affiliation with Kerry's campaign should be published every time he is mentioned as a whistleblower.
So I have no problem with the idea that Toensing should have disclosed more, if she did have some relationship with the defense.

[lurker]

"(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and"

Means that Plame could not attend a public event or two as covert agent.

What about that dinner Wilson put together in Africa for Clinton? Was Plame there?

[Feedup]

MayBee,

That would level the playing field too much.

[Cecil Turner]

Nobody (not Victoria Toensing, nor Tom Maguire) has shown that Plame was not covert.

Gee what a shock. We're back to a favored lefty meme: "I've made an assertion, you prove the negative." Absent a showing she was covert, I think we can comfortably continue with the premise it's at best "not proven."

The very fact that the CIA referred this case to the DOJ means that they believe that Plame was covert.

Yeah, probably explains why they referred the case under the IIPA, instead of just some generic thing on possible disclosure of classified information.

Toensing also appears to remain blissfully unaware of something that Fitzgerald made perfectly explicit to Libby at the beginning of his grand jury testimony - that the possible violation of several statutes beyond IIPA was under investigation.

Libby had a rock-solid defense for any such prosecution:

My understanding, when I heard it from Vice President Cheney, was that it wasn't classified information. I didn't understand it to be classified information. So my understanding would be, if I didn't think it was classified information, if it wasn't presented to me as classified information, if I wasn't intending to release classified information, that it wouldn't be a crime.

[royf]

It's not that she should have pretended to be impartial; it's that she did.

I wonder jeff if the same applies to Joe Wilson. Should Joe Wilson have disclosed his relationship to the Kerry campaign when he wrote his editorial in the NYTs.

Seems to me this entire case came about because a political operative wrote a bunch of lies while posing as a "impartial" critic.

[Jeff]

Jeff- I think reporters should have to disclose their close personal affiliation with the democratic party when they publish.

I'm so confused. I thought the consensus response to the point about Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan was thta her close personal affiliation with the Republican party thereby didn't matter for her BDS or her BDS-driven reporting. So confused.

[MayBee]

Well yes, I'm confused after reading your second sentence as well. What are you saying?

[Rick Ballard]

royf,

Armitage was no more liable under IIPA than Libby. The very first sentence of the act Whoever, having or having had authorized access removed both of them from jeopardy. The only party to this charade who knows the names of people with "authorized access" is the CIA. If the referral were actually about IIPA it would have to contain a determination that the "authorized access" provision had been breached. That's why Fitz has fought like a tiger to keep that ball hidden. He abused his office (again) in even bringing IIPA up at all.

If IIPA were actually in play the list of people to be investigated would be very, very short.

[windansea]

bwaaaaaaaahaaahhaa

Jeff wants reporters to identify themselves politically

what a tool

[Sue]

I think reporters should have to disclose their close personal affiliation with the democratic party when they publish.

How about everyone revealing their affiliation with people they are reporting on? How about Andrea Mitchell telling everyone before she reported on State matters that she had attended the wedding of Colin Powell? How about a blurb at the beginning of War on Wilson? that Matthew Cooper is married to a consultant for the John Kerry campaign?

[MayBee]

well, windansea, I'm actually the one that said that. I don't think I'm a tool, but I don't think it will ever happen, either.

[Feedup]

So Honesty is bad?

[MayBee]

oh and jeff- just for the record. I think Andrea Mitchell does a pretty solid job. I also think that she clammed up either to protect a source or to keep NBC out of the legal debacle.

[Sue]

I'm so confused.

::grin:: Not going there...

What point about Andrea Mitchell? Everyone knows she is married to Alan Greenspan. It isn't a secret. It probably isn't widely known of her's and Mr. Greenspan's close affiliation with Colin Powell, but hey, it also wasn't widely known that Matthew Cooper was married to a consultant with the John Kerry campaign. It also wasn't widely known that Joe Wilson was working for the Kerry campaign when he wrote his now infamous op-ed. In fact, it still isn't widely known.

[Sue]

What time does court start today?

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

Have you checked for additional filings this morning? Neither Cboldt nor SunnyDay have anything up.

[Pete]

Gee what a shock. We're back to a favored lefty meme: "I've made an assertion, you prove the negative." Absent a showing she was covert, I think we can comfortably continue with the premise it's at best "not proven."

I did not make the assertion. Toensing made the assertion which she cannot prove.

For most people the fact that the CIA referred the case to the DOJ, and the fact that Ashcroft did not kill the investigation are proof enough that Plame was covert.

[windansea]

well, windansea, I'm actually the one that said that. I don't think I'm a tool, but I don't think it will ever happen, either.

I am making fun of Jeff because he wants people like Toensing (who have non Jeffy POVs) to identify themselves politically

Of course this will never happen as most of the MSM are liberals but want to maintain their veils of "objectivity"

[MayBee]

yes, I agree with that, windansea.
Sweet dreams.....

[windansea]

So Honesty is bad?

honesty is good but this trial does not bode well for that proposition

[Cromagnon]

Lets see. Who am I going to believe? Larry Johnson, former CIA operative and someone who may know a thing or two about what 'covert' means... Or Tom Maguire, who has done nothing of note that I can tell, and political hack Victoria Toensing... Hmmmm, tough choice

[Sue]

Rick,

I haven't checked, but they are starting court now. Problem with a juror, held them up.

[Other Tom]

In a trial in which his case would be supported enormously by a showing that Plame was covert, a zealous and highly aggressive prosecutor has elected to adduce no evidence whatsoever to prove that she was. This fact seems to be so unpleasant for the Wilson supporters that they simply do not address it at all. To me, it speaks volumes, as does the language of the statue governing the question.

[windansea]

again...how was super duper secret knockworst Val outed?

In chronological order

during her 3rd date with Joe

when she suggested him for Niger trip

when CIA did not require Joe to sign non disclosure

when Joe lied to Kristoff and Pincus

Armitage blabbing to Novak

Harlow blabbing to Novak

Wilson blabbing to Corn

voila....but lets blame the 21 year old on the beach

[Sue]

Hmmmm, tough choice

The koolaid stand is around the corner...

[windansea]

Lets see. Who am I going to believe?

you should continue believing Larry fur sure dude...he is so believable that he has to delete posts on his blog and ban people whereas Tom lets retards like yourself dig your holes in public

[jerry]

Maybe Plame was acting covertly but in a way that is not covered by Toensing's outdated baby (IIPA), what laws would protect her security?

If Cheney, Libby, and maybe Toensing, knew of this situation and took advantage of it, putting people in danger, what does that say about them, and what should be done?

[Other Tom]

To answer your rhetorical question, Cromagnon, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are going to believe Johnson, because choosing to believe him fits your preconceptions. However, in describing Mr. Johnson you should be very attentive in using the word "operative." Johnson spent four years in the agency in a desk job, leaving it eighteen years ago. He was not, and does not claim to have been, "covert" at any time, and just why he might be expected to "know a thing or two" about the requirements for covert status is not at all clear to me. It is very clear out of Johnson's own mouth that he does not understand that "classified" and "overt" are not mutually exclusive categories. No cloak-and-dagger experience is required to read the plain words of the statute. And in any event he has no such experience.

[Sue]

he is so believable that he has to delete posts on his blog and ban people

He bans you for asking if he still believes there was a Middle East connection in the OKC bombing. I take it from his banning and deleting of such questions that he doesn't. It also gets you nasty emails from him personally. Which I've saved for a rainy day!

[sbw]

Shh! The newsreel's on. Then we get two cartoons, a two-reel cliff-hanger, and the main feature. ...

[Dale in Atlanta]

For most people the fact that the CIA referred the case to the DOJ, and the fact that Ashcroft did not kill the investigation are proof enough that Plame was covert.

Posted by: Pete | February 21, 2007 at 07:03

Ahhhh, for most NORMAL people, the FACT that Fitzpatrick indicted NO ONE on charges of leaking classified info, nor with leaking the identity of either a "Classified" or "Covet" agent of the Government of the United States, AND that Judge Walton, has instructed the Jury, NUMEROUS times, that they are NOT to speculate on Valerie Plame's status, as it has NO BEARING on the case, would be enough PROOF that what you are saying, is complete and utter horse hockey...

But, again, that's for NORMAL people, not Leftist Jacobins like yourself, suffering from Psychological Displacement, Category Error, Taqiyyah, Stockholm Syndrome, etc...

[royf]

Cromagnon

Since Larry Johnson showed what he knew about intelligence with his July,2001 editorial about the exaggerated threat of terrorism, That only leaves Tom Maguire and Victoria Toensing with even any credibility. As well as the fact Johnson was the "political hack" for the Kerry campaign.

[danking70]

So what's up with the trial?

Did the defense file any motions today concerning Fitz's close?

[Ralph L.]

I don't believe Wilson signed up with the Kerry campaign until 2004, after he was a shoo-in for the nomination, but the publicity about that was brief and mostly around the time he was dropped by Kerry, so I may be wrong.

Sue, you've got your wedding attendance reversed. Powell is still with his first wife (I originally typed "on his first", but that was disgusting).

[windansea]

Jeralyn's latest at Huffpost

So, why am I conflicted about whether Libby will be convicted? Because Libby isn't charged with conspiring with Cheney or White House officials to leak classified information or ruin Joseph and Valerie Wilson. He's charged with lying about discrete conversations with Matthew Cooper and Tim Russert, and thereby obstructing justice and impeding the grand jury investigation.

Memory is fragile and affected by many things, including but not limited to the passage of time. Libby was questioned in October, 2003 and March, 2004 about conversations he had in June and July, 2003. Every witness in this case had issues with memory. Ari Fleischer thinks he was not a source for Walter Pincus, while Pincus is sure he was. Fleischer testified he told reporter John Dickerson about Joseph Wilson's wife. He was so sure he had done so that he said it was a reason he sought immunity from prosecution. Yet, Dickerson is equally sure Fleischer didn't tell him.

Judith Miller forgot about her June 23 meeting with Libby until she found notes about it in a shopping bag filled with notebooks under her desk. She acknowledged hearing about Valerie Wilson from other sources, but couldn't or wouldn't identify a single one.

Matthew Cooper's notes and his first e-mailed report to his editors at Time don't match his trial recollection of his conversation with Libby. It seems more likely that Libby told Cooper not "I heard that too" but "heard something about the Wilson thing and not sure if it's even true."

Libby was grilled for 8 hours before the grand jury, at a time when the FBI had all of his notes but one, one which he didn't try to hide, but shared with investigators. He testified entirely from his memory of conversations he had months earlier.

Libby may have been hell-bent on following through on orders from Cheney to destroy Joseph Wilson's credibility. But, he's not charged with that. He may have leaked to Judith Miller but he's not charged with that. He may or may not have told Ari Fleischer about Valerie Wilson, but he's not charged with that.

As the defense pointed out in closing argument, Libby may have confused his conversation with Tim Russert with either the one he had with Robert Novak or the one he had with Matthew Cooper.

This is where reasonable doubt enters the picture. Reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence form the bedrock of our criminal justice system. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It can arise from the evidence presented or the lack of evidence. It's not about which side you believe more. If you think both sides could be right, or one side is probably, but not convincingly right or even that it's possibly right, Libby is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

[Semanticleo]

"if Libby is going down,"

Maguire. Are you calling this?

[Sue]

Presumption of innocence remains with defendant. [Wells read this yesterday]

And damn him for repeating it? The things you learn about people...

[Rick Ballard]

"If Cheney, Libby, and maybe Toensing, knew of this situation and took advantage of it, putting people in danger, what does that say about them, and what should be done?"

"If Cheney, Libby, and maybe Toensing, have converted to the church of Satan, putting people in danger, what does that say about them, and what should be done?"

"If Cheney, Libby, and maybe Toensing, are actually alien beings intent on conquering the earth and putting people in danger, what does that say about them, and what should be done?"

"If Cheney, Libby, and maybe Toensing, are actually leprechauns, causing mischief and putting people in danger, what does that say about them, and what should be done?"

I can go on for quite a while but the premise won't show any more intelligence at the end than it does in the beginning.

[KM]

We're back to a favored lefty meme: "I've made an assertion, you prove the negative.

All projection, all the time. How precious to hear this from a supporter of the administration that brought us to war in Iraq.

[Sue]

Ralph,

Okay.

[Semanticleo]

"A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense"

Is that shy Wells resorted to the pity card,
citing "two children at home"?

[clarice]

The notion that journalists should identify their political persuasion is interesting. Toensing of course is usually identified by reference to the appointed positions she held w/ surely does identify hers.

But I've been thinking about the media's assertion of a right to privilege, accorded professionals like doctors, lawyers and clergy. And here's where that argument fails. A profession is defined by the adoption of standards of conduct, licensure following tests of aptitude and knowledge and a means in place to w/draw the privilege of practicing that profession when those standards of ethical conduct are not met.
OTOH, a great many "journalists" are merely Dem operatives w/ new jobs (I.e. Stephanopolous, Matthews, Russert)

[hit and run]

Tom has ISP and/or typepad problems in the days leading up to and including closing arugments?

And the day after he's in like flynn?

I don't know what's going on, and will not speculate.

But,

I Question the Timing

[Rick Ballard]

"I don't believe Wilson signed up with the Kerry campaign until 2004"

That's incorrect. The Washington Times reported that he signed on in May 2003. Sometime in 2004 the stink became so bad that even Magic Hat couldn't stand it and dropped him.

[clarice]

The day after the SSCI report came out, Kerry dropped Wilson and erased his page from the Kerry website, Rick.

[sbw]

Clarice: The notion that journalists should identify their political persuasion is interesting.

The suggestion is put to rest because political persuasion is nuanced.

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Find me a "political persuasion" that fits.

[Semanticleo]

In connection with reasonable doubt, Walton
gave the jury instruction;

"Govt not required to prove doubt to scientific certainty."

[Cecil Turner]

For most people the fact that the CIA referred the case to the DOJ, and the fact that Ashcroft did not kill the investigation are proof enough that Plame was covert.

Nice proof (not). Classified information did, in fact, leak. (From Armitage, mainly.) Jeff's right about one thing: you don't need an IIPA violation to make a legitimate investigation. And in any event, "covert" would be a finding of fact in a trial . . . which in this case never happened (because Fitz knew he couldn't win it).

Larry Johnson, former CIA operative and someone who may know a thing or two about what 'covert' means...

Right . . . but can't be bothered to get facts straight on things like dates. Besides "covert" isn't some CIA term, it's a legal one. And rather than relying on someone as "reliable" as scary Larry, you could just read the statute. Requirements for being covert:

• identity is classified information [check]
• serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States [er, not so good]; and, (not in the definition section, but a requirement for a crime):
• the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States [Bzzzzzt]

In general usage, "served" means something other than "visited," and I don't think you're going to find too many takers on that one. But where this falls completely apart is in the "affirmative measures" requirement:

• Plame introduces hubby at a meeting, doesn't bother telling attendees not to write about her;
• Grenier's contact at CIA mentions wife, doesn't mention she's classified . . . Grenier passes it on, also neglects to mention classification;
• Harlow passes info to Martin, doesn't mention classification;
• Harlow confirms to Novak, then calls back (apparently figuring it out).

Sorry gents, but there's a reason Fitz didn't go there.

[clarice]

Semanticleo, that is a standard instruction--just in case you are under some misimpression.

[windansea]

"Govt not required to prove doubt to scientific certainty."

wow Cleo..that's a real bombshell!!

[Sue]

Find me a "political persuasion" that fits.

Rudican? Rudicrat? Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! ::grin::

[Pete]

Ahhhh, for most NORMAL people, the FACT that Fitzpatrick indicted NO ONE on charges of leaking classified info, nor with leaking the identity of either a "Classified" or "Covet" agent of the Government of the United States, AND that Judge Walton, has instructed the Jury, NUMEROUS times, that they are NOT to speculate on Valerie Plame's status, as it has NO BEARING on the case, would be enough PROOF that what you are saying, is complete and utter horse hockey...

Being covert is only one part of the IIPA. Just because Fitzgerald is not charging anyone with violating IIPA does not prove that Plame was not covert.

If you say that Fitz could not prove the IIPA violation, I'd agree with you. If you say that Plame was not covert, I'd disagree with you.

Fitz does not need to show what Plame's status was to prove his charges.

But, again, that's for NORMAL people, not Leftist Jacobins like yourself, suffering from Psychological Displacement, Category Error, Taqiyyah, Stockholm Syndrome, etc...

Ha!

[sbw]

Clarice: I've been thinking about the media's assertion of a right to privilege

I have no objection to media asserting a right to privilege so long as no one gives it to them.

Aside -- It's interesting to juxtapose the press for privilege along side journalists' world-wide effort to stop any attempts to license journalists using the argument that licensing opens the door to control.

[clarice]

So am I sbw. I didn't say is was a GOOD idea, merely an interesting one.(As if you are a dinner guest and are served up a tofu and liver pie and are asked to comment.)

[Sua Sponte]

"Govt not required to prove doubt to scientific certainty."

Shouldn't that be guilt instead of doubt?

[sbw]

Clarice: tofu and liver pie

Now what websites have I visited that left THAT taste in my mouth?

[Dale in Atlanta]

Cecil: there is another reason that Fitz didn't go there, which the Hypocritical LEFT ingores completely:

They enablers, and fellow seditionists, in the MSM, threw out the little FACT in their Amicus Curie Brief, filed in the Judy Miller case, when they were trying to protect one of their own, instead of overthrowing the Bush Administration, that Valerie Plame's identity was NOT "covert" or "classified", and thus the leaking of her identity was NOT A CRIME, because, 10years prior, her identity had in fact, been compromised by Aldrich Ames, first to the Soviet Union, and then later to Cuban Intelligence!

It was for this reason, that from that point on, Valerie Plame, was never considered for a NOC, or "covert/classified" position, outside the US, by the CIA, and that she in fact, completely transitioned out of those roles overseas, and was given a desk job back at Langely! She was useless in any cover/classified role for the CIA, after that point!

Those are the words/findings/facts, as attributed to the MSM! Not me!

The seditionist, hypocritical bastards, spent all that time, enabling the liar Wilson, and his wife, and savaging Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, et. al., and then immediately turn around, and file that Amicus Curie, basically saying, that despite our arguments for the past year+, we believe that no crime was committed!

Why doesn't anyone ever bring that up??????

[Alcibiades]

Heh Sue, you beat me on the Rudi comment!!

[Alcibiades]

---I have no objection to media asserting a right to privilege so long as no one gives it to them.---

LOL!

[Sue]

Alci,

I fear his run for president will be short lived. I support him. ::grin:: I have not had a very good track record of late for picking winners!

[Christopher Fotos]

Say, is anybody liveblogging the jury instructions other than FDL?

[Quixotic]

Now Conservative Red State America knows how Black America felt before O.J.'s "Not Guilty" verdict and Firedoglake types know how - well - everybody but Black America felt.

Libby is found Not Guilty.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left will just about parallel that of conservative publications after the OJ Verdict.

Patrick Fitzgerald = Marcia Clark.

Go figure.

Libby walks - the glove didn't fit.

[Pete]

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Find me a "political persuasion" that fits.

Me too and in my case strongly against the Iraq war.

If you look at Bus's record - he is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

On the fiscal front - we have record spending by the federal govt, record spending by the White House (if Bush wanted government to be small, he could have set a personal example but he did not), and record debt passed on to future generations, plenty of pork and wasteful spending in Iraq, billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq, etc.

[Sue]

FDL is not live blogging at the moment. Apparently EW got to 'go upstairs' whatever that means and has left the live blogging for the moment.

[Christopher Fotos]

Because this at FDL is interesting:

Ut oh, apparently a juror issue!

Walton: Received motion for evidentiary hearing. My recollection of my questions for voir dire is that I asked for association with lawyers. I did ask about an knowledge of lawyers associated with firm. I don't think a juror has said something or not said something. If she recognizes Mr. Randy Turk as a lawyer and made an association between him and the legal team. I don't know how to resolve it other than query her if she has . The partner at issue was not in the court room at the time, the partner was not associated with the defense until yesterday.

Jeffress: We do think voir dire should be handled with one lawyer from each side.

Walton: I need to get a court reporter. We'll break until we can get a court reporter. Shouldn't take long.

It sounds like one of the jurors had a case against one of the lawyers from Baker Botts, who showed up yesterday for closing statements. They're going to query her in chambers to find out whether she has a negative association with him.

Though the instructions then proceeded.

[sbw]

Johnny Cochran: If it's Fitz, you must acquits!

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Byron York gets it exactly right; Patrick Fitzgerald, failed human being:

-----------quote------------
The problem was, of course, that he had no proof of what he was saying. After the defense objection, Fitzgerald stressed that he wasn’t telling the jury that any of that happened, only that it could have happened. And, more importantly, that Libby might have thought it could have happened. And if he did, that would make it important, wouldn’t it? So it would be something he wouldn’t forget, right? Fitzgerald told the jurors they should think about this imagined “people being killed” scenario to understand Libby’s “state of mind,” but they should not draw any conclusions about “whether it’s true or false.”

When Fitzgerald finished, Judge Walton felt the need to step in. “I’m going to give you another cautionary,” he told the jury. “The truth of whether someone could be harmed based upon the disclosure of people working in a covert capacity is not at issue in this case. Remember what I have told you several times. Mr. Libby is not charged with leaking classified information.” And with that, the day ended.

It’s a commonplace observation of the legal system that a trial, whatever the lofty rhetoric of judges and lawyers, is not necessarily a search for truth. If anyone needed any more proof of that, it was on bold display Tuesday at the Libby trial.
------------endquote---------

[Great Banana]

Pete,

The term "covert agent" means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

- (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

- (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

So, your affiliation with the intelligent agency must be classified for you to be covert and you must have served outside the U.S. within 5 years.

That last bit is NOT obvious - does it mean "posted" outside the U.S. or does mere "travel" to outside the U.S. count? There is no case law interpreting this to date. I, for one, would take an attorney who wrote the law's opinion as to what was intended as pretty persuasive evidence. Others may disagree and argue differently. But, it is only that, argument and opinion, not fact.

Thus, the answer to whether or not Valeri was "covert" is NOT ANSWERED - and will not be answered. Moreover, we still have no answer as to whether or not she was even "classified." And frankly, at this point in the proceedings, it is not even relevant.

However, the very fact that not one person was charged with violating the law by "outing" Plame, leads me to believe that the prosecutor, at least, does not believe Plame was "covert" under the law.

Regardless, any attorney being honest will tell you that Larry Johnson's balderdash about the law is ridiculous. He clearly has no understanding of how to read a statute, and his time serving as a desk clerk for the CIA some 18 years ago did not give him a law degree. Thus, his opinion on what the law means, is really entitled to no deference.

If our new lefty standard is that anyone who worked for the CIA in any capacity is an expert on all CIA matters and laws pertaining to the CIA, than say it. Don't be shy. That is clearly what you are attempting to claim with regards to Larry Johnson. Such a belief is neither persuasive or logical.

[Alcibiades]

Sue ---Alci,

I fear his run for president will be short lived. ---

I'm more optimistic than you are. I think Rudi has got a lot of support by sensible people in the center. And a lot of conservatives support him as well. And even if he isn't the perfect ideological package for a lot of people, he's proven himself to be extraordinarily effective at changing what was considered intractable problems. After hearing endlessly from the media about Bush's ineffectiveness (and never hearing about his effectiveness because that won't "make news"), that is a very attractive quality.

I'm really looking forward to the debates, however. He's such an excellent extemporaneous speaker.

[Feedup]

Neither party has anyone running that's worth 2 cents.....