Libby is sentenced to thirty months but will be free pending a resolution of whether he should be allowed to remain free on appeal - the defense and prosecution will file briefs and next week Judge Walton will rule on whether Libby's grounds appeals are sufficiently novel and substantial that he should be allowed to remain free while the appeals percolate through the system. Per Marcy Wheeler's liveblog, the judge is not being asked to rule on the likelihood that Libby's appeals will be successful:
Mr. Libby’s status. Only issue is whether appeal would raise substantial questions of law or fact.
Wells: Our position that based on number of extensive opinions your honor could rule form bench that there are substantial issues.
Walton: I think all those opinions are correct. [And who does not respect a judge with self-confidence? TM]
Wells: ...We don’t have to establish with caselaw there is a probability, we only have to prove there are substantial questions, wrt to those alone, the court recognizes that the court was going into uncharted territory.
My guess - next week Judge Walton will send Libby to the slammer, which seems to mean he would report in 45-60 days.
Assuming that to be the case, what does Bush do next? Does Dick Cheney still have any sway in this Administration, and how hard will he push for a Libby pardon? Will a Libby pardon be offered as an olive branch to the righties who are furious with Bush over immigration? Would such an olive branch be accepted by a newly-reconciled right, or would it be used to smack Bush forcefully about the head and shoulders? After all, immigration reform will have a much greater impact on people's lives than the question of whether Libby does or does not go to jail.
If Bush wants to mend fences with the right, he better start mending the border fence.
And if Bush wants his comprehensive bill, maybe a Libby pardon that alienates the media and a big chunk of the public in a futile attempt to placate the right will not be seen as the best way to get it. (Hmm, am I saying a Libby pardon would be stupid and ineffectual? Call it a lock, then!)
Last wrinkle - Fred Thompson has been a big Libby backer. He laid out his objections to the process that led us to Fitzgerald last winter. And he makes similar points here - his main theme is that there was no IIPA violation because Ms. Plame was not covered by the statute:
The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody — the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a “covered person” under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.
He may be right about that. A bit more:
I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby. When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.
OK - does a Libby pardon become a hot potato for the other Republican Presidential aspirants?
ADD THIS:
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Pardon Scooter Libby?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Of the GOP presidential field, only Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado raised their hands to indicate they would pardon Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation in the Valerie Plame leak case.
-- CNN Political Researcher Xuan Thai
But wait - last May, "let the case play out" was the dodge. What now, assuming Libby is sent to jail?
If Judge Walton, President Bush, and Citizen Libby can agree, would Libby take this: no jail pending appeals in exchange for no pardon now or ever?
MORE:
ROSTOCK, Germany (AP) - President Bush feels "terrible" for the family of I. Lewis Libby but does not intend to intervene now in the case of the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was sentenced to prison Tuesday, the White House said.
Bush was informed by aides of Libby's sentencing in Washington two 2 1/2 years in prison after he got on Air Force One Tuesday to fly from the Czech Republic to Germany for the G-8 summit of industrialized nations.
They can kick this down the road at least until the judge rules next week. EQUAL JUSTICE: Jeff Goldstein is vivid on the gap between the Libby and Berger coverage:
For months and months now we’ve been hearing that the Libby trial was about the dangers of the “powerful” covering up their secrets—that Plame’s “outing” could actually jeopardize national security, and other self-righteous, hyperbolic, and patently absurd justifications for pushing forward in the hope of grabbing a Republican scalp.
Meanwhile, right here in front of us, we have a case where Sandy Berger, a former National Security Advisor, has voluntarily surrendered his law license rather than come clean about what documents he destroyed, why he destroyed them, and who he was trying to protect in doing so.
When I begin to hear the same people who’ve been braying for Libby’s blood take similar aim at Berger—and by all rights, their animus should be even more concentrated, given Berger’s position and power, and given the nature of his crime, which involved the pilfering and destruction of classified documents.
No reason to think of this as Berger protecting a former President; think of it as Berger protecting a future First Spouse. Well, Berger can become an issue as Hilary runs. And her supporters can claim she is being swift-boated, and the media will continue to ignore Berger, and the right (yes, me, dammit!) will seethe... Barack, anyone? WHILE MY On the underlying validity of the Fitzgerald investigation - this relates to Fred Thompson's point that the DoJ should have shut this down: From Mar 6, 2007: GUITAR KEYBOARD GENTLY WEEPS: On the off chance that someone is wondering just what in the world my official editorial position is on any of this (and because having an official editorial positions seems so very tidy and responsible), let me reprise some of my commentary following the Libby verdict last March.
Obviously in some cases, there is no argument that obstruction can obstruct an investigation. However, in this specific case Mr. York could have been more emphatic - Libby's alleged lies did not, for example, obstruct an investigation into murder, because there was no dead body anywhere in evidence. Similarly, it can be argued (as by York or Toensing) that Libby's testimony did not obstruct an investigation into the outing of a covert agent because Ms. Plame was not "covert" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Similarly, the Espionage Act has hurdles that no reasonable prosecutor could have hoped to overcome, beginning with the intent clause of the first sentence:
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States...
In this view, Fitzgerald spent two years investigating whether the Administration attempted to manipulate the media and avoid embarrassment while rebutting a critic. Since those activities are not crimes, Libby's testimony could not have obstructed a criminal investigation.
Of course, the Department of Justice could have made this determination before appointing Fitzgerald as Special Counsel, so the real failure of leadership was elsewhere.
I think Fitzgerald was handed a perjury/obstruction case and ran with it, which is fine as far it goes, since those are crimes, too. However, Fitzgerald's pretense that he was engaged in a search for "the truth" is not sustained by his own record:
In Jan 2004 Fitzgerald learned from Ari Fleischer that David Gregory had received a leak on the morning of July 11, which certainly gave Russert time to chat with Gregory and then with Libby.
Did Fitzgerald call Gregory to verify Fleischer's testimony? No. Why not? Ask Fitzgerald. But my guess is that he figured that Gregory would only undermine the case he was constructing against Libby, and building that case was more important than learning the truth.
Let's note that I am using the word "learned" loosely there - John Dickerson denied (in print, not under oath) receiving that leak from Ari Fleischer; Fleischer's story was that he leaked to both Dickerson and Gregory while chatting in Africa.
But as of Jan 2004, as best Fitzgerald knew Russert's colleague had received a leak on July 11. Where was the follow up? And when will NBC News follow up on this loose end? (NBC's timetable revealed!)
My position on Ms. Plame's covertiness is that it is a subtle legal point that has never been fully briefed or litigated, and we still don't know enough to know. I also have an original thought about a place to look for non-definitive guidance that I think the Libby defense overlooked, to wit, Ms. Plame's pension calculation; by law, she receives additional credit for service abroad, a key point of dispute in the applicability of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (A religious question - since I think Ms. Plame's covert status is knowable but currently unknown, I am rejecting the label of "agnostic". Am I right on the usage?)
On the broad question of Libby's guilt, I am not chasing him with a noose or pitchfork but I am not pretending he is an angel, either: (or Raw Story)
Maguire doesn't completely buy Libby's "I forgot" story, and believes that it's possible that the former vice president aide was just trying to keep his boss's involvement hidden.
"Personally, I think the single most probable scenario is that Libby uhh, shaded his testimony to keep Cheney out of the story," Maguire says.
And on the pardon question, my temporizing suggestion was that Bush ought to declassify some of the underlying material so that We the People can see for ourselves the seriousness of the crime and the Fitzgerald investigation - my goodness, the judge just sentenced Libby for obstructing an investigation into whether Ms. Plame was covert, and the judge still does not know if she is covert (He does know that the CIA says she is covert under their definition, and that their definition does not mirror the IIPA - quite a difference.) Time to find out.
FEEL THE LOVE: Scooter's letter, mostly positive, at The Smoking Gun.
NRO Editors - Pardon Libby.
Anyone who claims Valerie Wilson was covert or had (almost) nothing to do with the mission needs to explain why the CIA kept bringing her up ...
Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.
boris: My point EXACTLY !!!
Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"
If she was supposed to be covert and had (almost) nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???
DumbasS claims he answered the question ...
Which is a DumbasS dodge. When reporting every detail the OVP “needs to know” they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified.
As Cychotroll points out, there was no need to know the CIA wife detail. So just for DumbasS ...
EITHER admit CIA isn't violating law or need to know protocol ...
OR explain why they would do so in your long overdue answer.
If she was supposed to be covert and had (almost) nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 11:04 AM
A did not violate IIPA. He also, incidentally, did not violate SF-312.
How do you "violate" the SF-312? Are you confusing that with an actual, you know, law?
And why don't you explain why misrepresenting who you are (not just preserving anonymity, but pretending to be someone else, sometimes more than one person) isn't dishonest? Why should we trust anything from you?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 09, 2007 at 11:10 AM
One hesitates to infer a sequence based on anything wrintten by DumbasS, but it appears DumbasS is under the mistaken impression that the following is not against the law wrt unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
A and B have security clearance, C does not
A tells B classified information without classified designation
B properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to C
If DumbasS does not understand that A broke the law then he probably believes he has discovered a clever way to leak classified information legally.
What a DumbasS!
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 11:24 AM
No wonder he can't coherently answer the question ...
Cychotroll: There was no reason that the identity of his wife had to be revealed, at all.
boris: My point EXACTLY !!!
Everytime somebody asks the CIA about assclown Joe, out pops "It was his wife It was his wife It was his wife !!!"
If she was supposed to be covert and had (almost) nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???
DumbasS claims he answered the question ...
Which is a DumbasS dodge. When reporting every detail the OVP “needs to know” they don’t have to break the law doing it. Disclosure of classified information to authorized officials REQUIRES proper classified designation. Undesignated = unclassified.
As Cychotroll points out, there was no need to know the CIA wife detail. So just for DumbasS ...
EITHER admit CIA isn't violating law or need to know protocol ...
OR explain why they would do so in your long overdue answer.
If she was supposed to be covert and had (almost) nothing to do with the mission, why did they keep bringing her up ???
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Two more in the long list of Juke misrepresentations:
that false claim involves misquoting Wilson, a sub-topic I've addressed elsewhere
B.S. The full quote provides a qualifier that doesn't apply and adds nothing. Truncating that one does not affect the meaning (unlike the footnote you shortened to remove the conclusion). She was the first to recommend him--before the VP had even heard of the report in question--and they both lied about it repeatedly.
Now let's evaluate A's behavior. It's possible A did something really dumb. It's possible that A committed a firing offense.
The usual red herring. Absent intent, neither official broke any law. The point is, after B passes along A's info, it's A's fault, and he's the one who violated procedure, not B. (And if you could prove A intended the result, you'd have a case he broke the law.) You're trying to pretend B "violated" the SF-312, which is oxymoronic.
Further, applying the Armitage standard, even if A had given it to B with a "TS" stamp on the paper and an "S" marking on the paragraph, B would still not be liable for believing that part wasn't classified. The bottom line is that CIA is responsible for protecting the identity of covert agents, and they didn't (probably because they didn't consider her covert, or the info a big deal).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 09, 2007 at 11:34 AM
the one who violated procedure ...
That may be overly legalistic for discussion with a troll.
Procedure = law whether it can be prosecuted under intent or not IMO.
As long as DumbasS wants to pretend SF-312 is some kind of law that can be violated it is a waste of effort to disabuse that canard. For simplistic troll bashing, A's intent and B's uncertainty are irrelevant.
A broke the law (procedure). B disclosed to C based on reasonable belief (imperfect certainty) that A was acting properly.
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Trolls use the argument that Plame was covered by IIPA but Fitz couldn't prove intent because Libby lied and obstructed determining his intentions and that's why he should rot in jail.
Don't really have to engage trolls on that battlefield.
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Procedure = law whether it can be prosecuted under intent or not IMO.
In my (predominanty military) experience, procedures are generally orders. Though for most practical purposes they are the same thing.
And I was gonna give you first crack at this one, but . . .
Here's one: why did Libby insist that Miller hide his identity?
You're the expert, why don't you explain it to us? Maybe he was trying to hide his identity to make up for a lack of credibility. Or maybe he was going to provide corroboration to other reporters under other pseudonyms and make it look like more than one person had the same story . . . What do you get out of hidden identity, Juke?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 09, 2007 at 12:29 PM
procedures are generally orders
In this case IIRC (too lazy to check, headed out in the MG) the law or procedure is executive order.
Of the 3 law is easier to type.
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I still cannot fathom how one is able to proceed in court on an obstruction count in the special circumstances of the IIPA w/o establishing that Val was covered by it--not just covert but that the disclosure took place w/in 5 years of service abroad and the agency having done everything to protect her identity from disclosure.
Really,, I don't.
Posted by: clarice | June 09, 2007 at 12:32 PM
One could use the Captain Barbossa line on SF-312 ...
"Arg missy Turner SF-312 actually is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules ..."
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I still cannot fathom how one is able to proceed in court on an obstruction count . . .
Nor can I. And the violation being investigated has to be one of the statutes (IIPA being the only one that remotely applies . . . and it certainly doesn't appear to fit), not a procedure or order (executive or otherwise).
And I'm sure Juke will "prove" this tacit acceptance of Toensing's position makes us all dishonest. Perhaps under a new name, even.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 09, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Cecil Turner, during our annual security refresher course, A's disclosure without clearly marked classification make A at fault AND breaking the law. B with security clearance receiving classified documents without clearly marked classification from A is NOT at fault. Even when B passes it on to C.
Our annual security refresher course are reviewed and approved by our customer (NASA) and the government security agency (DJJ?).
We have had these annual security refresher courses for 20 years, when Bush 41, Clinton, and bush 43 were / are in the Oval Office.
Our annual security refresher course matches what Toensing said in her opening statement.
Therefore, Juke's attempt at proving the tacit acceptance of Toensing's making us all, including Toensing, dishonest means that Juke would make all of our government employees and government contractors dishonest.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 05:34 PM
Clarification:
We have had these annual security refresher courses for 20 years plus, when Bush 41, Clinton, and bush 43 were / are in the Oval Office.
So this is nothing new and not invented under Bush 43.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Clarification.
Especially if intentional.
I am with Clarice and Cecil Turner.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 05:46 PM
"The point is, after B passes along A's info, it's A's fault, and he's the one who violated procedure, not B. "
Isn't it simpler though? If you arent told specifically a CIA agent isn't covert, you should always ask. It took Novak one phone call didn't it?
"I still cannot fathom how one is able to proceed in court on an obstruction count in the special circumstances of the IIPA w/o establishing that Val was covered by it--not just covert but that the disclosure took place w/in 5 years of service abroad and the agency having done everything to protect her identity from disclosure."
Didn't the CIA provide Walton an "unclassified summary" of Plame's career that said she was covert, had served overseas within the 5 years prior to Novaks column and that the CIA was taking active measures to conceal her CIA employment? They even tracked it to the language in the statute.
Posted by: Looking_For_a_Way_out | June 09, 2007 at 06:32 PM
If you arent told specifically a CIA agent
Harlow and Grenier never said she was an agent.
By definition information disclosed without classified designation is not "classified information".
A broke the law (procedure). B disclosed to C based on reasonable belief (imperfect certainty) that A was acting properly.
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 06:41 PM
All Judge Walton got was something like a 11-question CIA referral letter. It is not a document that Plame was covert. In fact, in the middle of the trial, Walton said that he still did not know if Plame was covert at the time of Novak's article.
No. Boris is correct. According to our annual security refresher courses, B was acting properly based on reasonable belief that A was acting properly. It is A's responsibility to ensure that the classified document must be clearly marked, including verbal, as classified information. It is not B's responsibility to find out, by law and be prosecuted, if the data is classified or not.
It is simply Novak's courtesy to find out but not required by law to find out.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Novak may also have wanted confirmation a little stronger than "heard that too" from Rove.
Posted by: boris | June 09, 2007 at 07:02 PM
The CIA referral letter did not say that Plame was covert.
Re: had served overseas within 5 years. Toensing's opening statement said on page 6 and 7:
"In Joe's own words, in an autobiography titled, "Politics of Truth", Joe reveals the timing of her return from foreign assignment as June 1997, some six years prior to Novak's July 2003 column. Refer to Appendix B.
Also, page 3 lists the factors must be present for a government employee to violate the Act. Once of them is that the disclosure is intentional. We have not seen anyone disclosing Plame's status as intentional.
Notes:
1) Team Libby said in one of their filings that overseas travel had never been litigated.
2) Either Cecil Turner or cboldt says that in order for overseas travel to be considered for covert status, the number of days must be ten days or more.
3. Toensing says in her opening statement that overseas travel of an agent whose live is in danger makes an agent covert and protected under the conditions of IIPA.
4. Page 5 says 5 years since the agent had served "resided and acted" overseas.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Clarification:
It is not a document showing that Plame was covert.
Has anyone seen those 11 questions? There is something that CIA claimed her leak damaged some national security. But no one has proved that her leak damaged the national security and government.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 09, 2007 at 07:18 PM
A quick one for now about SF-312. More later about other things, like "verbatim text." I realize this is an old thread, but certain answers belong in this thread.
cecil: "The statute says it has to be 'clearly marked or clearly represented."
Yes, IIPA says what you're saying it says. Trouble is, SF-312 sets a broader standard: classified information is still classified information, even when it's unmarked.
"Dance all around your insisted interpretation of 'uncertain,' and the SF-312 is still irrelevant to the criminal IIPA prosecution."
Nice job with the straw man. I didn't claim that SF-312 was relevant "to the criminal IIPA prosecution." I said Libby violated SF-312.
"it's ridiculous: by your standard, one would have to check every single fact ever uttered, because you couldn't be 'certain' it wasn't classified."
It's not my standard. It's the standard explicitly called for by SF-312. And it doesn't mean "one would have to check every single fact ever uttered." Reasonable people rely on common sense. If White House official A receives a CIA memo that indicates the current year is 2007, A realizes that he is certain that this information is unclassified. He knows there is no chance whatsoever that this information is classified. There are many other facts that fall into this category, like what "CIA" stands for.
However, if A receives a memo with certain information about the employment status of a CIA employee, A realizes that there is at least a chance that this information might be classified. Even if normal practice is supposedly to mark such information, A realizes (if he is competent and careful) that humans make mistakes, and that he should avoid making assumptions when it comes to information that is possibly classified.
"The idea that he could possibly be liable while Armitage was not is ludicrous."
Please indicate where I said that Armitage did not violate SF-312.
"How do you 'violate' the SF-312? Are you confusing that with an actual, you know, law?"
That's rich. It's good to know how you feel about agreements: they mean nothing to you. "Violate" is something one can do with regard to a law. It's also something one can do with regard to an agreement (like a contract, for example).
"Absent intent, neither official broke any law."
I didn't claim that a violation of SF-312 is a violation of law. A violation of SF-312 is a violation of an agreement. Let's recall some things about SF-312. First of all, it's an agreement. That's why it has this name:
It's not just an agreement. It's a serious agreement. That's why it requires three signatures: the person making it, the person accepting it, and a person witnessing it.
The seriousness of SF-312 is indicated in these statements:
SF-312 indicates that classified information is not always marked as such:
SF-312 makes clear that the burden is on the discloser:
Hmm, let's see. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, had he first "officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it?" I don't think so. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, had he "been given prior written notice of authorization … that such disclosure is permitted?" I don't think so. When Libby divulged classified information to Miller, was he certain that the information he was divulging was unclassified? I don't think so. Did he "confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified?" I don't think so.
I think it's sufficiently clear that Libby violated SF-312.
"after B passes along A's info, it's A's fault, and he's the one who violated procedure, not B"
SF-312 makes no exceptions for a situation where A behaved badly. B does not get a free pass to violate his SF-312 agreement just because A allegedly violated procedure.
"The bottom line is that CIA is responsible for protecting the identity of covert agents"
Anyone who signs SF-312 is responsible for safeguarding classified information that comes into their possession, without regard to how it gets there. The question of whether CIA did enough to mark the information is probably relevant to an IIPA prosecution, but it's not relevant to the question of whether or not Libby violated SF-312.
Anyway, as I said, it's nice to know that agreements mean nothing to you, even when signed and witnessed. Bush repeatedly promised that he would restore honor and dignity to the White House. The GOP has repeatedly suggested that it's the party of integrity, morality and values. It's great to have this vivid demonstration of real GOP values: no behavior is off-limits, as long as you can manage to stay out of jail. Lying, breaking agreements, outing a covert agent during wartime: all OK, as long as you can manage to avoid a criminal conviction.
Please consider these two questions:
A) Did senior people in the White House handle classified information in an improper manner?
B) Did senior people in the White House handle classified information in criminal manner?
IIPA is relevant to B. SF-312 is relevant to A. It's no wonder that you just want to talk about B. It's a way of directing attention away from A.
You're basically taking the following position (paraphrase): "everything's OK, because outside of a little thing called perjury, no criminal activity has been proven." That's not good enough for me. Why is it good enough for you? How did your standards get to be so low?
The GOP is showing it's true stripes, as the party of hypocrisy. It claims to be the party of values, but it embraces lying and breaking agreements. It claims to be the party of national security, but it treats the improper handling of classified information as something to be condoned.
"Why should we trust anything from you?"
Because despite all your strenuous efforts, you've provided this many examples of materially incorrect information on my part (aside from minor errors that I promptly corrected): zero. Meanwhile, I've proven many examples of you posting misinformation.
By the way, why did you accuse me of unfairly truncating the R-S footnote, when I had already provided both shortened and unshortened versions of that footnote? And this is aside from the fact that the words you're making a fuss about strengthen my argument.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 11:59 AM
because A allegedly violated procedure
That's not the argument DumbasS.
By definition the information B received is not "classified".
B is not responsible for protecting information that is not classified.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Also, I'd like to point out that the A->B->C example has been simplified. It was:
A, B, C, D, E have security clearance, F does not
A tells B classified information without classified designation
B properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to C
C properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to D
D properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to E
E properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to F
Either A (Valerie Plame Wilson) committed a firing offense of unauthorized disclosure of classified information, or she disclosed unclassified information. B, C, D, & E (DoS guy at meeting, Ford, Grossman, Armitage) did nothing wrong either way.
Posted by: cathyf | June 11, 2007 at 01:08 PM
I think it's sufficiently clear that Libby violated SF-312.
I think it's sufficiently clear you are clueless on the subject, and your standard is ridiculous. But at any rate, that doesn't help you. Fitz was authorized to conduct "a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information." He can't hang that on a briefing booklet . . . and neither can you.
Meanwhile, I've proven many examples of you posting misinformation.
Heh. Like your "proof" that the "accord" was most likely the cover letter (which provides no info and makes about zero sense, eh?), instead of the only document that provides actual information, quoted in the report (e.g., "500 tons"). Again, long experience shows the futility of trying to discuss issues with you. You're not proving much of anything, except you can't even be trusted even to admit who you are. And yeah, I think dancing around that basic issue is a pretty good indicator.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2007 at 01:40 PM
cecil: "I mentioned Eisner in interest of completeness"
This is the only remotely substantive remark buried in your evasive tantrum.
You have a very strange idea of "completeness:" to cite a careless WP reporter (because it serves your argument to do so), while completely ignoring a pile of information in SSCI and R-S that contradicts him (and you). How ironic.
This matter is worth a close look. First, because it's a classic illustration of you doing what you do. Second, because the matter of the "verbatim text" is important and interesting (as compared with, say, explaining to a silly person that "uncertain" and "not certain" are precisely, perfectly synonymous).
Everyone (who is likely to be reading this) has heard of the Niger documents. What is probably not widely known is that there were lots of them. A list enumerating 17 separate documents is here. Here's something else that's not widely known: while almost all the documents are publicly available, the most important one is not. The most important document is the sales agreement itself. This is sometimes called the "accord." Niger was a French colony; France is the official language of Niger; most of the Niger documents are in French; "accord" is French for "agreement."
While the public has not seen the agreement/accord, we've seen lots of other related and supporting documents, like cover pages and letters. For example, here we can see a cover page that contains almost nothing except the word "ACCORD."
The Niger documents are important because they are the ultimate basis for the 16 words. Elsewhere I've shown proof that this is so, via R-S and other sources. Of course the other interesting thing is that they're obvious, amateur, inept forgeries. One of the great unsolved mysteries is why CIA spent over a year pretending they were real.
The Bushist yellowcake narrative works very, very hard to pretend that prior to 10/02, we had no detailed information about the Niger documents (I could cite many examples of righty bloggers promoting this falsehood). Promoting this idea is a high priority, for two reasons. First, it deflects and minimizes the question of why CIA overlooked the forgeries for a long time. Second, it makes Wilson look like a liar for claiming that he knew, in 2/02, that the documents were forged.
Trouble is, SSCI and R-S both clearly establish that although we didn't receive page-image copies of the documents until 10/02, we did indeed receive verbatim text of one or more documents in 2/02. In particular, SSCI and R-S tell us that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord in 2/02. And R-S tells us that this verbatim text contained the errors which indicate the forgery. In other words, R-S tells us that CIA could have and should have known, in 2/02, that the documents were forged. For some strange reason, R-S buries this information in a footnote. I wonder why.
Let's recall, again, that this document, the agreement/accord, is still not publicly available. As you helpfully admitted, "no definitive source I'm aware of cites the actual text received by CIA [in 2/02]."
This brings us to the current thread, where we get to consider your (cecil's) latest deception. Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that the documents were forged, and that the CIA should have noticed this in 2/02, and that Wilson (and others) did indeed notice this in 2/02 (although he is understandably coy about this, since it seems that he had only unauthorized access to the verbatim text, or to information about the verbatim text).
These are important points, so you put together a phony argument to claim otherwise. In particular, you claimed that the verbatim text we had in 2/02 was not "enough to debunk the documents."
Your argument is based on a long list of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
A) You completely gloss over the fact that R-S told us that the verbatim text, held by us in 2/02, contained the errors which indicated the forgery. This is reason enough to understand that you're dead-wrong, and that the verbatim text we had in 2/02 was indeed "enough to debunk the documents." This is clear without going into any further analysis with regard to which document(s) we held in 2/02.
B) You claim that we had verbatim text for only one document; this claim is possibly (or even probably) true, but unproven.
C) You pretend you know which document we had. You flatly say "the document the CIA had a 'verbatim text' for," as if there's no question that you're pointing to the right document. The document you're pointing to is what's sometimes called the 'presidential letter.' It can be seen here (page 1, page 2). Trouble is, SSCI and R-S plainly indicate that we had verbatim text for the agreement/accord (earlier I provided detailed citations for this). In other words, you completely ignore what they tell us is the correct document, and instead point to a different document, simply because it serves your argument.
D) Putting aside the above, let's assume the 'presidential letter' is the correct document (i.e., the document for which we had "verbatim text" in 2/02). You pretend or assume that this source has correctly identified all the textual errors in the document. Trouble is, they haven't. They don't bother commenting on these words: "500 TONNES D'URANIUM PUR." That means "pure uranium." Trouble is, yellowcake is definitely not "pure uranium." Yellowcake is uranium oxide, and can be called "pure uranium oxide," but lots of further steps are required before it can be called "pure uranium."
E) You acknowledge that the 'presidential letter' has a textual error, but you gloss over it with a wave of your hand ("2 is at best unpersuasive"). Trouble is, this error was glaring and unmistakable. The letter cited a Niger constitution that had been repealed years earlier. This would be roughly the equivalent of the White House issuing a press release that indicated the Declaration of Independence had been signed in 1876.
In other words, there are multiple independent reasons why your argument doesn't stand even the slightest scrutiny.
When I challenged you to explain why you picked this particular document, you cited Eisner, here, completely glossing over the fact that he has made the mistake of overlooking what we learned from SSCI and R-S (that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord, not merely a letter).
But you cite him in a very tricky way. You mention a document he cited (which happens to be a letter; the Niger documents included several letters). But then you make a complete leap and claim the correct answer is some other letter (the 'presidential letter'). You point out, correctly, that SSCI indicates that the "verbatim text" makes reference to "500 tons;" you point out, correctly, that Eisner has pointed to a letter that does not make reference to "500 tons;" and you point out, correctly, that the 'president's letter' does, indeed, make reference to "500 tons."
Someone who's not watching closely doesn't realize that you're performing a cheap card-trick: you choose to adopt Eisner's idea (false but convenient) that the correct document is a letter of some kind, and then you cherry-pick SSCI's statement about "500 tons," and then you put these together to force the card that best serves your argument: the 'president's letter.' Never mind that SSCI and R-S both told us to look for the agreement/accord itself, not some ancillary letter.
By the way, it's clear that Eisner is very confused. It's not just that he pointed at a document that's incongruent with what is stated by SSCI and R-S. It's that he pointed at a document that's incongruent with what he said in his own book. This is explained in detail here.
It's interesting to notice that probably no MSM reporter has studied this subject more than Eisner. He's written a book about it. Yet he's making careless errors. This is enough to indicate that MSM has done a very poor job of covering this subject matter (the verbatim text). In fact, they've mostly ignored it. Just like righty bloggers. I wonder why that is.
You're clever. You use Eisner to point in the direction of looking at letters, but then you create deception and confusion by slightly distancing yourself from Eisner, by claiming that he's pointing at the wrong letter, and you know which one is the right one. You get to put some space between yourself and Eisner, but meanwhile you're using him to ignore what R-S and SSCI said: it wasn't a letter; it was the accord/agreement.
The irony is that you and Eisner are both ignoring SSCI and R-S. But it seems pretty clear that he's making a mistake, and you're practicing deception.
Given the number of people who can't find Iraq on a map, and can barely remember the name of the VP, it's no surprise that your stuff is effective.
It's interesting to note that this particular technique you're using is not rare. Here's the idea behind what you did: find a lefty (or allegedly lefty) source that makes a mistake and offers a false fact. Notice that the fact can be used to help you build an argument. Present the fact as part of your argument. Pretend you don't know the fact is false (or, in your case, present the idea that it's only slightly false).
This is clever, because you get to say 'hey, it must be true; even a lefty admits it.' And you get to say 'look at how fair and balanced I am; I quote lefties; I practice completeness.'
An interesting example of Power Line doing this sort of thing is here. Notice the following words:
That statement is false, and I can prove that Power Line knows it's false. Yet they're very happy to present those words, because the lie is laundered via WP. Just like you found a way to launder your lie through WP.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 02:07 PM
cecil: "Like your 'proof' that the 'accord' was most likely the cover letter (which provides no info and makes about zero sense, eh?)"
You're being completely incoherent. By "cover letter" are you trying to say "cover page?" There are several letters that could be considered cover letters. And there is one document that could be called a cover page. And that page provides essentially "no info," which is why I think you meant to say "cover page," not "cover letter." However, none of these are the agreement/accord itself, which is what CIA had (in verbatim-text form) in 2/02.
And I never said anything remotely like this: "the 'accord' was most likely the cover letter." I also never even said anything remotely like this: 'the accord was most likely the cover page.'
We realize that you can't get very far without inventing your own facts, and without putting all sorts of words in my mouth.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 02:07 PM
boris: "By definition the information B received is not 'classified'."
What you are pointing to is IIPA. The text in IIPA is not a general-purpose definition of classified information. It is a definition of classified information that is subject to IIPA.
It's possible you didn't know this: IIPA doesn't cover all kinds of classified information. It only covers some kinds.
SF-312, on the other hand, covers all kinds of classified information, including classified information that's unmarked. I cited the exact language above.
If Libby received unmarked information, he's in a position to argue that he didn't violate IIPA. However, that doesn't put him in a position to argue that he didn't violate SF-312.
cathyf: "A tells B classified information without classified designation
B properly assumes the information is unclassified and discloses to C"
There's your problem, right there. SF-312 tells us that classified information is still classified information, even "without classified designation." And there is nothing 'proper' about 'assuming' that information is unclassified simply because it arrives (allegedly) "without classified designation."
I realize you're all terribly excited about this loophole in IIPA, but unfortunately SF-312 lacks this loophole.
cecil: "Fitz was authorized to conduct 'a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information.' He can't hang that on a briefing booklet . . . and neither can you."
I realize you want very, very much to construct a straw man and put words in my mouth. That will be effective only to the extent that your audience consists of fools who can't do their own thinking.
I never said that Fitz could hang his "criminal investigation" on "a briefing booklet." I never said that there was any connection between Fitz's criminal investigation and SF-312. I said that Libby violated an agreement. Why do you condone this?
By the way, it's worth taking a moment to savor this latest misrepresentation on your part (aside from putting words in my mouth). Yes, there is a "briefing booklet" associated with SF-312, but SF-312 is not "a briefing booklet." It's a formal, binding, legal agreement, signed and witnessed. Nice job trying to create the impression that it's just a "booklet" people read.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 02:29 PM
What you are pointing to is IIPA ...
Liar
Pound sand DumbasS
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 02:46 PM
classified information is still classified information, even "without classified designation
Since the law says just the opposite you will need to quote your claim DumbasS or be called Lying DumbasS Troll.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 02:51 PM
may: "complains about having to scroll a quarter page to get clarification of a quote someone else provided him"
I guess you're determined to keep digging. What you provided (here) wasn't "a quote." It was a fraudulent paraphrase (as I pointed out here). I guess you're determined to remind us that you have no idea that there's actually a difference between those two things.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 02:54 PM
boris: "Libby is NOT UNCERTAIN"
This would be helpful: an example of Libby saying something like this, either directly or via a semi-official surrogate (you don't count): ''I was NOT UNCERTAIN about her classified status; I knew her employment status was unclassified; also, I always follow the general rule, much-promoted at JOM, that unmarked information should be assumed to be unclassified."
And one more time, the question you love to duck: if he was "NOT UNCERTAIN," why did he require Miller to hide his identity?
"The set of NOT CERTAIN is EXACTLY EQUAL TO the set of UNCERTAIN."
I'm glad you're finally catching on.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Sure, Juke. "Briefing booklet" is an attempt to deceive, instead of just common terminology. "Cover page," "cover letter." Oh yeah. Lies . . . damn lies. All red herrings anyway.
The points you (obviously intentionally) are trying to avoid:
- Since there was no underlying crime, there was no legitimate investigation to obstruct. Libby's supposed violation of the NDA doesn't fix that for you.
- Since there was no way for Wilson to know "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong," he was lying on the point. He tacitly admitted such. The availability of "verbatim text" at CIA HQ that could've spawned an investigation doesn't fix that for you.
Your fixation on minutiae (and loads of patent BS to "prove" dubious contentions) can't mask the fact that your overall argument in both cases is a fallacy, and hence dishonest.Speaking of which, it's exactly this sort of thing that's gotten you kicked off this (and several other) comment boards. Explain to me how coming back repeatedly under new pseudonyms to do precisely the same thing isn't deceptive. Kinda makes the "liar liar" routine a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2007 at 03:05 PM
I said that Libby violated an agreement ...
Rank DumbasS speculation follows ...
Poppycock DumbasS.
Prove the predicate (information was classified) even though the law says otherwise and show EVIDENCE that Libby had REASON to be uncertain.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 03:10 PM
Statement 3 should properly read ...
(3) Therefore by assuming "CIA wife is classified" to be true, Libby could not be certain she was not no MATTER HOW REASONABLE the belief, and thus Libby was UNCERTAIN and in violation of SF-312.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 03:13 PM
The DumbasS syllogistic speculation can be simplified ...
Given: RE: Wilson's wife; iformation unidentified as classified was disclosed to Libby.
Poppycock DumbasS.
Prove the predicate and show EVIDENCE that Libby had REASON to be uncertain.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 03:26 PM
The other thing one needs to remember (rational individuals only) is that covert operative identities are not the kind of classified information that an OVP press secretary or assistant (or even VP) deal with EVER.
There would be no experience to draw on for the OVP to say to themselves "hey, this is a CIA identity, maybe we should double check in case both of our official CIA informaion channels are totally FUBAR".
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 03:32 PM
boris: "Pound sand DumbasS"
This is another one of those instances when I can't tell if you're being dumb or dishonest.
Let's review. I said this:
You are claiming that what you are pointing to in your "Pound sand DumbasS" link is something other than IIPA. Really?
I guess then you must mean that your pal cecil is a liar, since he referred to that exact page as "the IIPA definitions section."
And here's some more proof, since we all know that cecil is not exactly a credible source. Please see the page linked here. Notice the window title: "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Scroll down to the section called "definitions," and you'll see the exact text you're making such a big fuss about. That text, as cecil correctly said, is the definitions section of IIPA.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 03:38 PM
At the time I first read the definition I had been discussing executive order 13292 and I made the false assumption it was from that document.
Which does say ...
Under Sec 1.6 of executive order 13292 ...
Under Sec 5.5 of executive order 13292 ...
13292
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 04:00 PM
That said the other definigion is much clearer and it is unlikely that it's interpretaion in practice is different than executive order 13292.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 04:04 PM
boris, the CIA doesn't actually claim that Plame's status was ever classified under EO 13292. According to Waxman, they claimed classification under EO12958. Which, of course, was no longer in force after Mar 25, 2003...
Posted by: cathyf | June 11, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Yes I do recall that.
There would a number of complications in applying the A -> B -> C hypothetical as you point out elsewhere.
My (current) take on Cecil's IIPA definition is that it the statement pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order indicates that the IIPA definition derives from those sources and is a clear, valid interpretation of them.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 05:03 PM
cathyf, that is such a good point and I haven't used it in anything because to date it has seemed too tangential for AT's readers, but I just blogged on Aronoff's piece and included it. If that blog runs, I'll try to catch it and post it here.
(Of course, if she were transitioning to DoS in that period, they may not have reclassified her after March which would mean this whole thing is--as we suspected for other good reasons--a fraud by the CIA.
Posted by: clarice | June 11, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Since Cecil has not weighed in here on the DumbasS claim that the definition I have been quoting (from Cecil's link) is FROM the IIPA rather then general law regarding disclosure of classified information, I am going to challange that claim.
IIPA apparently does reproduce that definition in it's body, but the definition sure appears to be a general one based on the link) ...
Although I was mistaken to believe it was from the Executive Order, I appear to be on solid ground with ...
Pound Sand DumbasS.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 07:07 PM
The more general Subchapter ...
... Does refer to Executive Order which I have quoted above and that contains this definition ...
Together with the previous quotes it supports the Subchapter IV definition pretty closely.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM
boris: "general law regarding disclosure of classified information … the definition sure appears to be a general one based on the link"
You're still trying to deny reality. I guess you didn't notice the name of the subchapter:
Notice that pesky word again, "certain?" You have a lot of trouble with that word (even though it's being used in a different sense here).
You continue to insist that you've found language that applies to classified information in general, even though the section title is trying to tell you that the definition you found applies only to "CERTAIN" national security information, i.e., "Identities Of Certain United States Undercover Intelligence Officers, Agents, Informants, And Sources." This is commonly known as IIPA. And the definition clearly applies only for the purposes of IIPA, and not outside IIPA. Did you read the definition that you're flogging so hard? Here are the first six words of that definition:
Hmm, "this subchapter." And what subchapter is "this subchapter?" The subchapter is this:
And what is SUBCHAPTER IV all about? That's laid out in the first section of the subchapter:
That's what's commonly known as IIPA. In other words, the definition you're citing is "for the purposes of" IIPA.
One more time: this definition doesn't claim that all unmarked information is automatically considered unclassified (that's the patently absurd claim you're making). This definition only claims that leaks of unmarked information cannot lead to criminal prosecution under IIPA.
One more time: you cited IIPA. I told you that you were citing IIPA. You denied that you were citing IIPA. You're still trying to deny that you were citing IIPA.
Next up, you'll trot out some impressive symbolic logic demonstrating that IIPA is not really IIPA.
It's not just that you can't keep track of the most basic underlying facts. It's that you're also aggressively, obnoxiously, boorishly committed to hanging on to your fraudulent facts, and impervious to even the clearest evidence.
Thanks for this extraordinarily vivid demonstration of graduate-level wingnuttery, in full bloom.
"marked to indicate its classified status"
It makes sense that an executive order would instruct people to mark classified information. However, here's a statement you will not find in that executive order, or any executive order: 'if, for whatever reason, classified information is not marked properly, it is automatically considered unclassified and leaking it is considered fine and dandy.'
That's the absurd proposition you're promoting. The folks who wrote SF-312 realize that proposition is absurd. That's why SF-312 says this:
That's common sense. See if you can find some.
Keep in mind where your absurd proposition takes us. DOD clerk A receives a classified document, marked as such. He thinks it would be funny to redact the classified markings. He hands the document to Clerk B (both A and B have security clearances). B thinks it would be funny to post the document on his blog. According to you, B's behavior is OK, right? Because "the term 'classified information' means information or material designated and clearly marked," right? And if it's not "clearly marked," then it's just not classified information, right?
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 08:38 PM
According to you, B's behavior is OK, right?
Stupid example.
B knows it's classified.
Your DOD office received clearly marked classified infomation. It remains classified within that office no matter what.
If B calls C in the OVP on the phone and tells C the information without indication that it is classified, then B is in violation, not C.
Yes Subchapter IV contains only one example of "certain" national security info, IIPA. There is no restriction on the Subchapter containing others however and the definition is on the same level as the IIPA.
Since Subchapters IV and VI definitions both reference the same Executive Order your claim that they are substantially different is bogus.
IIPA is not going to intepret the Executive order different than Subchapter VI, they were just written by different authors.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 08:50 PM
I told you that you were citing IIPA
And in fact I was not.
I quoted a definition that applies to the Subchapter that contains IIPA.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 08:52 PM
So DumbasS once again, Pound Sand.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Keep in mind where your absurd proposition takes us
Your absurd proposition would require every official to double check every item of information that was not clearly marked "unclassified". It doesn't work that way and it can't work that way.
Harlow and Grenier provide the OVP press secretary and assistant unclassified relevant information for their public response to the Wilson's. They clearly did not consider or indicate that the wife detail was classified.
Right way (if wife really is classified)
DumbasS way (if wife really is classified)
See the difference DumbasS. Right way nobody mentions the wife.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 09:06 PM
I am going to challange that claim.
Juke's right that section is in the IIPA. But it's the only definition that applies to leaking covert agents' identities, so unless we've completely changed topics, you can treat it as general as well.
There isn't any one definition for classified information. The Espionage act (defense information) uses:
The "unauthorized removal" section uses another:For the CIPA (using the information at trial), the definition is:Obviously the usage in the above is quite different. An espionage agent who whites out the markings on the crypto codes in section 798 would not be protected from disclosure thereby. Similarly, an officer who gathers documents per section 1924, and strips the markings, would still be liable for removing and retaining them. And one couldn't pretend at trial that a certain bit of classified information was not to be protected because you'd found (or made) an improperly marked copy.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2007 at 09:24 PM
Interestingly, there was a blanket proposal for a generic leaking prohibition in the 2001 Intelligence Authorization Act, which used a permutation of the definitions (Section 304):
It passed both houses . . . however (Sen Shelby): And was stripped out of the bill. Bottom line, there's one definition of classified information that specifically relates to covert agents, and it has the "clearly marked . . ." bit in it. And personally, I don't think Juke ever got over the basic hurdle for civil liability under the SF312:Seems to me the "most CIA officers are classified" assertion is more than balanced by "the fact that they told us about her indicates she wasn't one of them" . . . and leaves this well into the "pure speculation" realm. If Armitage can plausibly claim that, Libby's claim is ironclad. And in any event, last I checked we were talking about a criminal case, and this is totally inapplicable to that.Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2007 at 09:34 PM
boris: "in fact I was not [citing IIPA]. I quoted a definition that applies to the Subchapter that contains IIPA."
Ah, I see. You were citing something "that applies" to IIPA, but is not part of IIPA.
You should take that up with cecil, who described the section you cited as "the IIPA definitions section."
You should also take it up with Toensing, who said this:
By "the law" she obviously means IIPA, and the business about "within five years" is obviously a reference to the same section 426 you're trying to claim is not part of IIPA. In other words, Toensing, like cecil, treats section 426 as part of IIPA.
You should also take it up with Power Line, who also cite section 426, and introduce it with these words:
In other words, Power Line, like Toensing and cecil, treat section 426 as part of IIPA.
While you're at it, take it up with WSJ, who said this:
WSJ and Boot are making it clear that the "five years" business (which comes straght from section 426, which you insist is not part of IIPA) is "a key limitation in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."
While you're at it, notice that Toensing talked about creating IIPA, and talked about "the reasons we added the five years." In other words, she is plainly indicating that section 426 (where the "five years" business is found) is part of IIPA.
While you're at it, notice how Novak described Toensing's testimony:
One more time: that business about "five years" comes straight from section 426, which you insist is not part of IIPA. Notice that Novak says "as defined by." Oddly enough, that's because section 426 is the definitions section of IIPA.
Speaking of Toensing's testimony (pdf, p. 5-6), she explicitly references section 426, and describes the process of being involved in writing it, as part of the process of drafting IIPA.
Finally, you should consider the opinion of some folks who obviously have no idea what they're doing: Libby's lawyers. They said this (pdf, p. 9):
(Emphasis added.) This statement explicitly treats section 426 as part of "the IIPA." Logically enough, they say "the IIPA defines," because section 426 is the definitions section of IIPA. Which is exactly what cecil said.
You can't imagine the entertainment value of watching you hold on to your bogus position, including gratuitous puerile vulgarities, even while cecil, Toensing, Power Line, WSJ, Boot, Novak, and Libby's lawyers all indicate that you're wrong. And your other so-called "facts" are just as bogus as this one.
You raise wingnuttery to heights seldom seen, even around this joint. And that's saying a lot. Any day now, Bush will give you a medal.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 10:15 PM
boris: "show EVIDENCE that Libby had REASON to be uncertain"
Libby knew that Plame was a CIA employee. Libby knew that the employment status of many CIA employees is classified. As far as we can tell, Libby was given no affirmative indication that Plame's employment status was unclassified (in other words, there is good reason to believe that no CIA official ever offered to Libby a statement like this: "blab all you want, because her status is unclassified"). In the absence of such an affirmative indication that Plame's status was unclassified, Libby indeed "had REASON to be uncertain."
I've explained all this already, but you're exceptionally obtuse.
You've presented various reasons you think Libby was in a position to assume something. However, making an assumption is not the same as being certain.
"B knows it's classified."
How does B know it's classified? How is your claim that "B knows it's classified" any different than my claim that Libby "knows it's classified" (or knows it might be classified)?
"Your DOD office received clearly marked classified infomation. It remains classified within that office no matter what."
I didn't say that the two people work in the same office. Here, maybe you'd like this example better: B works for CIA and C works for the White House. B redacted the markings, and C posted the document on his blog.
"B is in violation, not C"
Is that what you're claiming in the example I cited, where B works for CIA and C works for the White House? You're claiming that it's fine for C to post the document on his blog? Actually, you do seem to be claiming that.
Oh yeah, one more thing. The INR memo was indeed marked "SECRET," both on a page level, and a paragraph level. Why are you suggesting that Plame's employment information was unmarked? Is there a requirement for sentence-level and word-level markings?
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Oh yeah, one more thing. The INR memo was indeed marked "SECRET," both on a page level, and a paragraph level. Why are you suggesting that Plame's employment information was unmarked? Is there a requirement for sentence-level and word-level markings?
Actually, the INR memo was labelled "Top Secret." (And if you were familiar, you could figure that out even from the Sun's white outed copy.) But unless you're claiming Libby saw it, it's irrelevant to the conversation . . . except as an illustration of the gross double standard applied to Libby as opposed to Armitage who was leaking from it. What Libby got, according to witness testimony, was snippets of conversation with no indication it was classified. That's not "clearly represented" and hence not "classified" per the IIPA.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 11, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Ah, I see. You were citing something "that applies" to IIPA, but is not part of IIPA.
Under Subchapter IV Protection of Certain ...
There is Section 421 Protection Of Identities ...
There is Section 426 Definitions ...
426 applies to all of the Subchapter, not just Section 421. Other certain protections could be added to the subchapter and the definition would apply to them as well. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that implies it can NOT be considered PART of IIPA. BS that is stupid. It can be considered part of any other protection added to the Subchapter as well.
It's still irrelevant because the definition in that subchapter is based on the Executive order just as the definition in subchapter VI. That means even worded differently they mean the same thing unless one of them is defined incorrectly.
Libby knew that Plame was a CIA employee ...
And that if she had been classified she would not have been mentioned unless there was need to know in which case her classified status would have been indicated.
So, your supposition is wrong, DumbasS. There is no evidence to counteract the reasonable belief that both CIA officials acted properly.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM
boris: "426 applies to all of the Subchapter, not just Section 421"
Here's the part you don't get. IIPA is not "just Section 421." IIPA is "the Subchapter," which includes 421, 426, and a bunch of other things.
Please keep telling us that you were not citing IIPA when you cited section 426. Even though Libby's lawyers and a bunch of other people have indicated what's obvious, that section 426 is part of IIPA. Your stubbornness is helpful, because we like being reminded of how appallingly dense you are.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 11:22 PM
It can be considered part of any other protection added to the Subchapter as well
It may not be considered PART of the executive order, but since that's from where it derives it can be considered a clear and valid expression of the executive order. As I have already shown the executive order provides the same meaning in a less concise and clear form.
That means you need to show that the IIPA definition is incorrect when it claims that ...
Otherwise, pound sand DumbasS
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:26 PM
IIPA is not "just Section 421." IIPA is "the Subchapter,"
Wrong, IIPA is the only certain protection in the Subchapter. Add another protection and your statement becomes false.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:28 PM
cecil: " 'Briefing booklet' is an attempt to deceive, instead of just common terminology."
It's dawning on me that you have no idea how transparent you are.
Yes, when you said "briefing booklet," it was indeed "an attempt to deceive." You said this:
Those words imply that SF-312 is only "a briefing booklet," and not a legally binding, witnessed agreement.
Yes, there is indeed such a thing as an SF-312 "briefing booklet" (what you call "common terminology"). But it's relatively unimportant, compared with the signed agreement. And most of the SF-312 language I've cited here comes from the agreement, not the "briefing booklet." It's not OK for you to pretend that SF-312 is nothing other than "a briefing booklet."
"Since there was no underlying crime, there was no legitimate investigation to obstruct."
Tell that to Judge Tatel, who said this (pdf):
It's quite amusing to notice that CIA (an executive department branch reporting to Bush) took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime," and that DOJ (an executive department branch reporting to Bush) also took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime," and that at least two Bush administration appointees (Comey and Fitzgerald) took this matter seriously, even though "there was no underlying crime." And then there are various judges, like Tatel and Walton.
Face it: you're whining because you don't like the result. Claiming, as if it's a proven fact, that "there was no underlying crime," requires inventing all sorts of your own facts. Which is something you like to do, as I have proven.
"Libby's supposed violation of the NDA doesn't fix that for you."
I see you're still dragging that adorable little straw man around with you. I never claimed that Libby's violation of SF-312 assists Fitz with the IIPA questions.
"The availability of 'verbatim text' at CIA HQ that could've spawned an investigation doesn't fix that for you."
Actually, it does, because it is extremely plausible that Wilson saw that verbatim text (or information about it), and it's equally plausible that he would be coy regarding how he got to see it.
In your typical style, you're offering assertions backed by neither facts not logic.
"An espionage agent who whites out the markings on the crypto codes in section 798 would not be protected rom disclosure thereby"
My hypothetical did not ask a question about "an espionage agent who whites out the markings." It asks a question about a person (with a security clearance) who subsequently gains possession of that document.
"one couldn't pretend at trial that a certain bit of classified information was not to be protected because you'd found … an improperly marked copy"
Really? That seems to be at odds with what boris is saying. He seems to be saying that only the person who deleted the markings is at fault, and any behavior downstream of that is fair game.
"the basic hurdle for civil liability under the SF312: 'no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation' "
Plame was a CIA employee. Many CIA employees have an employment status that's classified. This is enough to bring us out of the category of "pure speculation." Likewise for the fact that the INR memo was marked "secret."
"most CIA officers are classified"
Where did you find that particular straw man, which you're presenting as if it was an actual quote? I said "many," not "most."
"the fact that they told us about her indicates she wasn't one of them"
Another pseudo-quote. I have no idea where you got this from or what it's supposed to mean.
"last I checked we were talking about a criminal case"
You (individually and collectively) are choosing to be "talking [only] about a criminal case," which means you're doing a good job of reminding the rest of us that the GOP condones all sorts of improper behavior, as long as jail isn't involved.
"What Libby got, according to witness testimony, was snippets of conversation with no indication it was classified"
Which puts him in the same position as the person in my hypothetical, who somehow comes into posession of a document where the "secret" markings were redacted by someone else. You seem to be suggesting this person can do whatever they want. Right?
"minutiae"
Claiming you know things that you don't know, when those things are material, is not "minutiae." It's deception. I've proven that's what you've done in this thread. And the problem doesn't go away simply because you wave your hand and declare that your deceptions are "minutiae."
"loads of patent BS"
This is how many times you've proven that I've posted BS: zero. Meanwhile, you've posted plenty, and I've demonstrated that in detail.
And you're still ducking all sorts of simple questions. Let's summarize a few of them:
A) If the 16 words weren't about Niger, why did Tenet retract them?
B) Why did Libby ask Miller to hide his identity?
C) R-S tells us that CIA had enough information in 2/02 to detect the forgery. Why did you claim otherwise?
D) Why did CIA ignore an obvious forgery for over a year?
E) SSCI and R-S both told us that we had verbatim text of the agreement/accord. Why did you claim it was another document?
F) Why is it that righty commentators and bloggers virtually never mention the "verbatim text?"
G) Why did you accuse me of having a sinister reason to truncate an R-S footnote, when I had already posted both short and long versions of that footnote?
I'm sure I forgot a few, but those are a good start.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 11:28 PM
that section 426 is part of IIPA
It can be considered part of any other protection added to the Subchapter also.
Section 426 contains the definitions that apply to 421, 422, 423, 424, and 425.
Assume protection X is added to the Subchapter as section 427.
IIPA = { 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426 }
X = { 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427 }
Since there is no X the set {IIPA} is equal to the set {Subchapter IV}. But it is an incidental equality subject to change and not an identity relationship.
So if you are claiming it is an identity relationship rather than an incidental equality, you are inaccurate.
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:37 PM
boris: "Add another protection and your statement becomes false."
Classic. English translation: "if the law said something other than what it says, then you'd be wrong. Along with cecil, Toensing, Libby's lawyer's et al."
Thanks for that helpful report from planet boris. Back here on earth, the law says what it says.
Here's a clue: if we were to someday "add another protection," then we might discover that it's no longer logical to call the law "IIPA," and it might end up with a different name. But for now, the law says what it says, and we call it "IIPA." And according to all the people I cited, section 426 is part of IIPA. And your vigorous claims otherwise prove only that you're an extraordinarily arrogant ignoramus.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 11:37 PM
other than what it says, then you'd be wrong
Another example of a troll presenting it's own stupid lack of comprehension for a simple inconvenient reality as EVIDENCE.
Ya okay troll, your stupidity is evidence of the fact that you are DumbasS!
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM
boris: "if you are claiming it is an identity relationship rather than an incidental equality, you are inaccurate"
Here's what I'm claiming: if referring to section 426 as part of IIPA is good enough for all the people I've cited, then it's good enough for me.
Here's something else I'm claiming: it's very hard to tell which is larger, your ignorance or your arrogance. But you help the rest of us remember what the GOP is really all about, so please keep it up.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 11, 2007 at 11:46 PM
it's no longer logical to call the law "IIPA" ...
Oh please. Under Subchapter IV Certain Protections there would be IIPA and Protection X.
Get a brain would ya.
if referring to section 426 as part of IIPA is good enough for all the people I've cited
I have not claimed it is not part of IIPA. In fact I have explicitly diagramed it as part of IIPA = { 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426 }
So stop with the DumbasS lies.
Quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA, it is quoting from a section of Subchapter IV that applies and is part of IIPA but would also apply to and be part of any other protection in the Subchapter as well.
Sheesh. Give it up already DumbasS!
Where is your explanation how the definition in 426 is different from the executive order it is based on? Cuz I'm going to continue to use it as a clear valid expression of the meaning from the executive order no matter how much you bitch and moan and throw your long winded preposterous vomitous tantrums.
Ha ha DumbasS!
Posted by: boris | June 11, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Those words imply that SF-312 is only "a briefing booklet," and not a legally binding, witnessed agreement.
Silly. The point is that they need a possible violation of a criminal statute to justify a criminal investigation. If you prefer, change the argument to "he can't hang that on a legally binding, witnessed agreement."
And your SF-312 fixation is ridiculous, especially when one considers that a "Standard Form" is a blank. (Why folks normally refer to a signed one as an "NDA.")
Actually, it does, because it is extremely plausible that Wilson saw that verbatim text . . .
Heh. You've gone from inventing a document to pretending Wilson saw it and knew it was a forgery.
Likewise for the fact that the INR memo was marked "secret."
It was marked "Top Secret" and it's still irrelevant to a discussion about Libby.
By the way, your "cover page" winge was particularly silly, since your own link describes doc 5 as the "Agreement Cover
Letter." And it's a bit of a mystery why you linked those forgeries in the first place, since you claim the verbatim text one isn't amongst 'em.
I know you love this endless parsing to see who can gotcha the most typos. (And claim each one is a lie. Cute.) But I find it dull. Toodles, Juke.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 12, 2007 at 12:56 AM
boris: "I have not claimed it [section 426] is not part of IIPA."
Let's review. I said this:
You responded as follows:
You have claimed repeatedly that section 426 is not part of IIPA.
Let's review a bit more. You cited IIPA's section 426 here:
And then you also said this:
(Emphasis added). I responded as follows:
Then you said this:
And you followed this with a passage from IIPA's definition section (section 426).
Continuing down the same path, you then said this:
In this clip, your word "definition" is pointing toward one of your own comments, which I've cited, where you quote verbatim from IIPA's section 426.
I responded as follows:
Then you said this:
Your link on the word "liar" points to IIPA's section 426 indirectly (via other comments of yours), and your link on the phrase "Pound sand DumbasS" is a direct link to IIPA's section 426.
In other words, you repeatedly pointed at IIPA, and then repeatedly denied that what you were pointing to was IIPA. I then pointed this out to you, here.
You then responded with a mealy-mouthed non-apology where you mumbled something about having made some kind of "false assumption."
"In fact I have explicitly diagramed it as part of IIPA"
Yes, you eventually saw the light and did so, but only after I proved that cecil, Toensing, Power Line, Novak, Max Boot, WSJ and Libby's lawyers all indicated that you were wrong. And now you're trying to pretend ("I have not claimed it is not part of IIPA") that you never said the foolish things you said.
But of course in your typical incoherent style of being all over the map, and contradicting yourself from one nanosecond to the next, you then promptly claim, again, again, that section 426 is not part of IIPA:
And let's see your full paragraph, since it's a classic of illogic, gibberish and double-talk:
Did everyone catch that? So section 426 "is part of IIPA," but "quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA." Makes perfect sense. Just like your other creative claims, such as claiming that "not certain" and "uncertain" don't mean the same thing.
"Where is your explanation how the definition in 426 is different from the executive order it is based on?"
You're suggesting that "the definition in 426" is identical to the language in the executive order. Really? If the folks writing IIPA intended an identical meaning, why didn't they use identical language? Better yet, why not just incorporate the executive order's language, by reference?
Posted by: DouglasS | June 12, 2007 at 10:39 AM
cecil: "If you prefer, change the argument to 'he can't hang that on a legally binding, witnessed agreement.' "
I do prefer that, because it's doesn't embody the false claim that SF-312 is nothing more than "a briefing booklet." However, it still uses a straw man, because I never claimed that CIA, DOJ, Comey, Fitz and various judges, who all took the matter seriously, were all simply upset about the fact that Libby violated SF-312.
However, we should be upset about that. Unless we have exceptionally low standards. You're doing a nice job of proving that you do, indeed, have exceptionally low standards. You make this obvious in many ways. For example, you make this obvious when you indicate that the idea of violating an agreement means absolutely nothing to you, and that only laws, not agreements, can even possibly be violated:
"your SF-312 fixation is ridiculous"
Nice job adding more proof: you think expecting senior officials to respect the agreements they sign is a "fixation," and "ridiculous." Thanks for this vivid demonstation of how the party of values actually feels about values.
"especially when one considers that a 'Standard Form' is a blank"
You're being completely incoherent. Something that's truly "blank" has nothing on it at all. SF-312 is not blank except for where the signatures go.
"Why folks normally refer to a signed one as an 'NDA.' "
You can call SF-312 an "NDA" if you like. I don't see what this does for you.
"You've gone from inventing a document to pretending Wilson saw it and knew it was a forgery."
Uh, no. I haven't invented a document. I'm simply paying attention to what SSCI and R-S told us, which is that CIA, in 2/02, had verbatim text of the agreement/accord. The invention is all yours: we're still waiting for you to tell us why you pointed toward a different document, contrary to what was reported by SSCI and R-S.
As far as "knew it was a forgery," there's nothing surprising about that, since R-S told us the verbatim text revealed the forgery.
As far as "Wilson saw it," there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I didn't claim that "Wilson saw it." I claimed only that he either saw it, or was given information about it. This is highly plausible. In fact, it would be much more mysterious to imagine that no one said anything whatsoever to him about the verbatim text, given the timing, the nature of his mission, and Plame's job.
"It [the INR memo] was marked 'Top Secret' and it's still irrelevant to a discussion about Libby."
It seems to me that you're suggesting that various folks (like Cheney) told Libby about Plame, but neglected to mention that her employment status was classified. Really? How do you know?
I think it is generally assumed that the White House heard about Plame via the INR memo. That memo is marked "secret." So who, in your narrative, dropped the ball and forgot to convey that information? The tooth fairy?
"your 'cover page' winge was particularly silly, since your own link describes doc 5 as the 'Agreement Cover Letter.' "
As usual, you're being completely incoherent. You're blowing pure smoke by making a statement that's both false and irrelevant. I have no idea what you mean by "your own link," since I can find no place where any source of mine uses that phrase ("agreement cover letter"). You have it in quotes, as if it's an exact quote. Really? I notice that the relevant google ("agreement cover letter" niger) turns up essentially nothing.
If I want to try to guess what you mean by "your own link," I suppose I could assume you're talking about eriposte, who I've cited several times as a credible source. However, what he calls "doc 5" is definitely not an "Agreement Cover Letter." In fact, it's not even a "Cover Letter." In fact, it's not even a "Letter." Eriposte's "doc 5" is this. Also see here. This is known as an "annex," which "details the alleged approval to the alleged sale by the State Court of Niger." This is a document which is peripheral to what we've discussed so far. Why are you dragging in the idea of "doc 5," all of a sudden? Maybe you'll tell us.
Meanwhile, here's what's silly, and still pointedly unexplained: your claim that we had verbatim text of the 'presidential letter.' Why did you make that up, and present it flatly, as if it were a proven fact?
"it's a bit of a mystery why you linked those forgeries in the first place, since you claim the verbatim text one isn't amongst 'em."
First of all, it's not just something I claim. It's something that's apparent to anyone who pays attention to SSCI and R-S they both told us that we had, in 2/02, verbatim text of the agreement/accord. The documents currently available to the public make reference to the agreement/accord, but the agreement/accord is plainly missing.
Anyway, there's no mystery in why I "linked those forgeries in the first place." They demonstrate that virtually all the documents we've seen are packed with childlike errors. This helps us to understand that the other document(s) we haven't seen are similar, if not worse. And we don't have to make any assumptions about this; R-S told us that what we held, the agreement/accord, contained errors which indicated the forgery.
Also, SSCI and R-S do not tell us that CIA, in 2/02, held only the agreement/accord. What they communicate to us, essentially, is that CIA held at least the agreement/accord. This is another reason to take an interest in the other documents, which may also have been in CIA posession in verbatim-text form, in 2/02.
"I know you love this endless parsing to see who can gotcha the most typos."
It's not a question of "typos," just like it's not a question of "minutiae." You have presented outright fabrications that are distinct and material, and that have nothing to do with "typos." Claiming that I've pointed out "typos" is yet another fabrication on your part.
And you (both individually and collectively) are still ducking all sorts of simple, fair, relevant questions that I outlined here.
Posted by: DouglasS | June 12, 2007 at 10:40 AM
You have claimed repeatedly that section 426 is not part of IIPA
Not even once liar.
Re: The Law. What I wrote ...
DumbasS responded as follows:
No stupid. The laws wrt disclosure of classified information to authorized recipients. Executive Order 13292.
The meaning of "classified information" expressed in section 426 of Subchapter IV of CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY ...
Is a clear and valid expression of the Executive order and why I continue to quote it. If you disagree that they simply use different wording for the same meaning, please demonstrate your claim in a coherent concise fashion.
Otherwise Pound Sand DumbasS.
Posted by: boris | June 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Did everyone catch that? So section 426 "is part of IIPA," but "quoting from 426 is not quoting from IIPA."
Section 426 is part of any and all protections included in subchapter IV (which only contains IIPA for now). Therefore quoting 426 is quoting from Subchapter IV.
You say "Subchapter IV = IIPA" which is true in the incidental equality sense but as I have shown is not an identity.
Based on your limited understanding you can quote 426 if you like and claim it is "from" the IIPA. Fine I won't dispute that interpretation. ... BUT ... When I quoted 426 it was as a clear, valid expression of the Executive Order contained in Subchapter IV and IIPA was not a factor because the context was "classified information" not "covert agent".
Your claim seems to be "We're BOTH RIGHT and therefore YOU'RE WRONG" ...
Which looks stupid even for you DumbasS.
Posted by: boris | June 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
From Executive order 13292 for the record ...
Other sections add meaning ...
If the DumbasS claim is that the meaning established in the Executive Order is somehow different than the meaning of section 426 ...
Perhaps DumbasS should better spend his efforts developing that argument. DumbasS always wants to take the easy way "If they mean the same why didn't they just use the same words?"
I didn't write it DumbasS. Not my question to answer is it? Do your own frakkin work because that stupid trick don't.
DumbasS
Posted by: boris | June 12, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I didn't write it DumbasS. Not my question to answer is it? Do your own frakkin work because that stupid trick don't.
Posted by: battery | December 29, 2008 at 08:55 AM
I do not know how to use the wakfu money ; my friend tells me how to use.
Posted by: sophy | January 06, 2009 at 07:51 PM
When you have Archlord gold enough, you can get more!
Posted by: Archlord gold | January 14, 2009 at 03:35 AM