Plame Mythbusters

Carol D. Leonnig of the WaPo takes it upon herself to debunk five "myths" about the Scooter Libby case.  I will say she scores four out of five; however, I also see that her fifth point has caused a bit of confusion, since Big Tent Dem at TalkLeft is claiming that she supports the left, not the right.  I disagree and consider her to be on my side on that one, but we will come to that in a bit.

Her first point is this:

1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.

Wrong. She was.

...But a CIA "unclassified summary" of Plame's career, released in court filings before Libby's June 5 sentencing, puts this one to rest: The CIA considered her covert at the time her identity was leaked to the media. The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment. That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to reveal the identities of covert CIA officers.

...The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

Here we go again.  A subsequent defense response clarified the Fitzgerald release (my emphasis):

The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently.

Or of asking the CIA is the preferred path, let's reprise happened when Congressman Peter Hoekstra of the House Intel Committee did just that:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

Look, the CIA prepared a memo to prop up Fitzgerald's case and their own criminal referral, but they have not opined on Ms. Plame's status under the IIPA.  I made the same point about the Waxman hearing.

But if Ms. Leonnig would like a trial to pursue, my pension idea could benefit from a bit of WaPo-powered reporting.  Per the Times and the Congressional Record we know that the CIA tracked Ms. Plame's service abroad for purposes of calculating her pension.  So what is the most recent date for which she received credit for service abroad?  Seems like an easy question, although for some reason Fitzgerald chose not to present the answer.

As to Myth Five, Ms. Leonnig wrote this:

5. The White House would fire any administration official who leaked classified information about Plame.

In each of the first four cases Ms. Leonnig presents a statement she believes to be false, i.e., a "myth", and then presents her version of reality.  Here is her follow-up to Myth 5:

When the investigation began, the president said he hated leaks and would hold leakers of classified information accountable. But he has not sacked anyone over the case.

Libby resigned the day he was indicted in October 2005. Two other officials who gave reporters information about Plame, former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, left government before Fitzgerald's inquiry concluded. And Rove, who first told Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame's CIA identity, remains in the White House.

Big Tent's interpretation:

And Leonnig reminds us that the Bush Administration lied when it said it would fire anyone who leaked classified information...

Interesting - I would have interpreted this as Ms. Leonnig agreeing that Bush never actually said he would fire anyone, as I argued in "Don't Play 'Gotcha' With The President".

HOWLER ALERT:

This from Ms. Leonnig is absurd:

When Libby was convicted, some conservative pundits complained that Fitzgerald had presented no compelling evidence at trial that Plame was covert. But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to their client.

Oh, please - Libby asked for discovery on Ms. Plame's classified status; Fitzgerald argued that this was a perjury trial and her status was none of the defense's business; the defense fretted that Fitzgerald would inflame the jury with references to her status that the defense was not in a position to knowledgeably contest; so the judge barred all discussion of her status.

To blame the defense for the ongoing mystery of her actual status turns the case upside down.

Some links, please?  Byron York discussed Fitzgerald's refusal to document Ms. Plame's status, or check this Feb 24 2006 hearing excerpt (p. 39):

MR: WELLS:  ...
04 Maybe if he [Fitzgerald] would give me the discovery showing
05 whether she [Ms. Plame] was classified, whether she was covert, I would be
06 in a position to make some educated judgments about how to try
07 this case. Ms. Wilson may be a witness.
08 THE COURT: Wouldn't it only become, as far as actual
09 damage, wouldn't it only become relevant if he actually knew
10 what her status was?
11 MR. WELLS: It might in terms of a actual damage. I
12 don't know. See, I might call Ms. Wilson. One of the
13 questions is, the indictment also says that outside of the
14 intelligence agency or community no one knew about her. I may
15 decide to call her. I may call her husband. There are going
16 to be CIA employees, operatives who are witnesses in this
17 trial. They may have a bias against Mr. Libby because they
18 think he outted somebody.
19 I need to understand is she covert or not. If she's
20 classified, is she really classified or is just classified
21 because some bureaucracy didn't unclassify her five years ago
22 when they should have. I just want to know the facts.

Byron York also summarized Walton's final ruling, which led to the cursury CIA summary released in Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum.

Oddly, Ms. Leonning reported on that very hearing.  Memory does play tricks.

Comments

[anduril]

And if you read 28 U.S.C. Section 510 as allowing the AG to delegate all his authority, it'd seem to me to be an unconstitutional overreach.

BTD responded to Malor, btw, and has some more good points. Still don't find them terribly compelling, but interesting (though strangely, he doesn't know Walton relied on Morrison). I suspect we're going to see a completely new precedent on this particular case, anyway, since nothing seems to fit exactly.

Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 10, 2007 at 04:00 PM

It'd be like Bush (but see a later post) making Cheney "the functional equivalent of the president" possessing "all his powers." Wouldn't fly, wouldn't even get started down the runway.

I thought BTD basically missed most of the main points.

[anduril]

**"Then" not "than"

...

Posted by: clarice | June 10, 2007 at 04:10 PM

Villainous Company, always a well-written blog, has an interesting take on the case which mirrors that of those posters who say Buch believes so much in the legal system he's willing to let it first work its way around this.

...

Posted by: clarice | June 10, 2007 at 04:18 PM

clarice,

Buch = Butch?

I kinda like that. "Shrub" is just kinda silly. The lefties may want to pick up on that.

[clarice]

I really need a damned TYPIST! ..

[PatrickR]

'...the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment.'

Yeah, like sitting on their hands for over a month while Joe talked to anyone who'd listen about the secret mission he'd gone on for his wife's employer. Apparently no one at CIA thought to send a referral to Justice about Nick Kristoff's columns, or any of the others for whom Joe was obviously the source.

I'd hate to see what their dilatory measures are.

[anduril]

PatrickR, why so cynical? Look, these career public servants at CIA have your best interests at heart and it's about time you learned to trust them.

[clarice]

Anduril, don't forget that Pillar was also allowed while on the payroll to travel about the country bashing Bush's foreign policies in the pre-election period.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/deja_vu.html

[anduril]

With the best interests of ignorant taxpayers at heart, right? :-)

[windansea]

this from AP, which appears to have been taken over by non biased aliens as they actually get the facts right.

WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Tony Snow said Sunday it will be up to the president to decide whether to intervene if I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is ordered to prison soon in the CIA leak case.

"I'll let him announce it if and when he decides to do so," Snow said when asked about the prospects for President Bush intervening.

The press secretary was responding to a question on "Fox News Sunday" about the case of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.

A jury convicted Libby of lying to a federal grand jury and the FBI about how he learned about the CIA employment of Valerie Plame and what he told reporters about it.

On Thursday, Libby's lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to delay Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence, a request the judge has indicated he's not inclined to grant.

Libby's lawyers say they have a good chance of winning an appeal of Libby's convictions for perjury and obstruction in the case involving Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Bush's intervention might not be necessary in order for Libby to avoid jail. If Walton soon orders Libby to serve his term, a federal appeals court could step in and delay such action while Libby appeals.

[clarice]

Did Apuzzo write that? He has been consistently fair and accurate.

[windansea]

just says by staff...probably is Apuzzo

[sylvia]

"That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act"

Hello??? "Echoes"!??? 'Echoes' is not part of the legal languge. We don't say, "well it looks like what that guy did, seems to echo that he commiited a crime, therefore we will assume he is guilty. Au contraire, we don't just determine if something "echoes" a law, in our court system we actualy find out for a fact if certain specific conditions exist in a law. Why do so many pundits have a hard time with this and are willing to accpet a whitewash? So far, we or more importantly the defense have not heard specific information that Plame was indeed covert as relevant to the statute during the relevant time period. And I further venture to add, if it was a 'close call' and/or open to interpretation for some reason and/or never fully determined by Fitz in the beginning, that itself was not good enough to pursue an investigation and charges should be dropped. It's not that hard people!

[RichatUF]

from the WaPo at item 3

...But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock....

I guess she could figure out the advanced filing system that Miller had, and the time travel required for Libby to have told Miller before Wilson's home phone showed up. Also she must have gotten the Time Question Mark?™ decoder ring-I supposed it helped Cooper that the story was, by the time he wrote, nearly a week old and his boss was talking to none other than Joe Wilson. She also must have esp because Russert said he didn't have notes and the FBI lost some of theirs.

Overwhelming

RichatUF

[windansea]

The Prez gets some love in Albania

At home, Bush's job approval rating stands at its all-time low. But here, Prime Minister Sali Berisha said Bush was Albania's "greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times."

Throngs of people grasped Bush's hands, arms and fingers on the streets of Fushe Kruje, a small town near the airport where he stopped to chat in a cafe with business owners. Unused to such adoring crowds in America, Bush reveled in the attention. He kissed women on the cheek, posed for pictures and signed autographs. Someone reached out and rubbed his gray hair.

"Bushie, Bushie," people shouted. Some of the business people have received small loans under U.S. government programs.

All of Leonnig's points are silly, but the worst is this:

But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock.

She then quotes Walton's contention Libby: "had a unique and special obligation." Personally, I don't find Walton's personal code all that illuminating. The statute is specific as to what "classified information" means:

For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1) The term "classified information" means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security. [emphasis added]

And contrary to Leonnig's assertion, the overwhelming evidence at trial was that Libby never received anything remotely like that. So she's using her own definition of "classified information" as well as "covert." Ironically, the two guys who could plausibly be pursued for such--Armitage and Fleischer--were either immunized or effectively so by Fitz.

By the way, Scary Larry makes some of the same points in the middle of a long ad hominem against TM (the fluffy bunny rider thing is hilarious, however, especially since Larry misspelled "Maguire" in it). Apparently the IIPA has been amended . . .it's no longer that the CIA must be "taking affirmative measures to conceal" but "the CIA must say they're taking affirmative measures . . ." Walton's codicil on the definition of classified information is to be added later, apparently.

[Cecil Turner]

The above (5:41 PM) is me. Weird.

[clarice]

Cecil in the cloak of invisibility.(Well done, of course.)

[boris]

He's covert for sure.

[boris]

Can't be seen in mirrors either.

[anduril]

Cecil, that "the CIA must say they're taking affirmative measures . . ." is probably a reference to the reporting requirements in the IIPA: CIA must provide a written report to the President saying whom they're concealing and what measures they're taking to conceal them; the President must then report to Congress. I doubt that the Act was amended, and saying so isn't good enough--they have to show that they really are doing it.

[boris]

they have to show that they really are doing it ...

They keep her file in a locked cabinet.

[Cecil Turner]

I doubt that the Act was amended . . .

Sorry, that was sarcasm. The point was that it's CIA's responsibility to protect her identity. The evidence (calls passing along her employment status to OVP without bothering to mention it was classified; Harlow's confirmations; the meeting that spawned the INR memo) show--beyond a reasonable doubt IMHO--they didn't do that. Pointing to a claim by CIA as proof positive they did it is risible. Like what are they going to say ("sorry, we screwed up, and then we tried to blame it on somebody else"?). Just silly.

The IIPA, as you note, says they actually have to do it. That's a finding of fact, normally done at trial, along with the "covert" thing. Fitz resisted discovery and kept it out of court successfully, even though he dragged it back in for sentencing. The logical conclusion is that he didn't want to go there, most likely because he didn't think he could prove it. I share his pessimism on the point. But Libby got sentenced on it anyway, which has got to be reversible error.

[boris]

I interpreted Cecil's comment to be sarcasm based on a CIA claim that they were taking affirmative measures while their own officials Harlow and Grenier testfied during the trial that they made zero effort.

[cathyf]

It'd be like Bush (but see a later post) making Cheney "the functional equivalent of the president" possessing "all his powers." Wouldn't fly, wouldn't even get started down the runway.

Actually, it would be more like Bush recusing himself, and Cheney then granting "all the powers of the president" to the gardener...

[Rick Ballard]

Anduril,

The statute text of the reporting requirement is as follows:

Section 423. Report

(a) Annual report by President to Congress on measures to protect
identities of covert agents

The President, after receiving information from the Director of Central Intelligence, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees an annual report on measures to protect the identities of covert agents, and on any other matter relevant to the protection of the identities of covert agents. The date for the submittal of the report shall be the date provided in section 415b of this title.

The purpose of the reporting requirement was to prevent the CIA from being able to hide actions behind the "covert" shield - like they're doing now.

Someone might ask ol' Gold Medal Tenet if he remembers signing any of the required reports as DCI.

[cathyf]

The CIA's claim that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment is like when your 3-year-old is standing there, surrounded by chocolate wrappers, with chocolate smeared over face, hands and clothes, and claiming, "No, mommy, I didn't eat any chocolate."

It's cute when a 3-yr-old does it; not so cute when government employees lie like toddlers.

[PatrickR]

Speaking of covertiness, I spent several days this past week trying to resuscitate a friend's laptop that was operating so slowly it took half an hour just to load Windows.

I ran three virus scans and took off 250 parasites. Found over 24,000 temporary internet files, and it still didn't speed up much.

Just when I was about to initiate last rites, it was recommended that I give TuneUp Software a shot.

I downloaded it for free (you can try it out for 30 days), installed it and ran some of the utilities. It was like magic (though it took forever, I had to let it run overnight). It found a bunch of damaged file clusters and repaired them. According to my friend the laptop runs faster now than when it was new.

Anyone having computer troubles ought to know about it.

[Maybeex]

What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.

Leonnig's construction of this portion just bothers me.
What the CIA says about Plame is a fact.
What Walton says about Libby's special obligation is worthy of note.
The fact that no CIA person has testified to telling Libby Plame was classified, and nothing has surfaced indicating Libby had any way of knowing she was classifed, partnered with the fact that all CIA employees that testified *did not* tell Libby she was classifed.....well, that's just "unclear".

[anduril]

Sorry, that was sarcasm. ...

Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 10, 2007 at 06:04 PM

Cecil, not only did I go for the bait...I jumped right into the boat! A lesson in taking oneself too seriously. :-(

Rick, earlier in the week I did a bunch of posts on that reporting requirement, my point being: no reporting on Plame, no IIPA case. 'nuther point: there are people who know the truth of all this. This is not some big freakin' mystery.

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

So there is a novel in here somewhere. Ashcroft is AG, Ashcroft recuses in favor of Comey. Comey is now ACTING AG. Comey then delegates all powers of AG to Fitzgerald. In the meantime Ashcroft retires and somehow Gonzales is appointed and confirmed as AG. Comey retires. Leaving Fitzgerald with all the powers of the AG. So if one wanted to get really picky one could say that there is a conflict between Gonzales and Fitzgerald as to who is actually AG. But, then we have the pesky problem of superior and inferior and Gonzales, I guess is superior because of the direct appointment and confirmation. But then how does Fitzgerald retain any powers of the AG once Gonzales is appointed and confirmed? And if he does, then does that make him (Fitz) Gonzales' boss by virtue of seniority (time with the power) as the one with all the power of the AG?

I know this is all crazy, but try to chart the darn thing. No matter how you slice it, Fitz is hanging out there as AG in power after Comey leaves, if not in fact. Somehow I don't think this is the way it is supposed to work.

[Rick Ballard]

Anduril,

The statute language is "measures to protect identities of covert agents", not the names of the agents. What would be of aid in answering the covert question is a contrast with CIA "measures to protect" and what they actually did.

The "complexity" cited by the CIA may well have to do with the difficulty in crafting language that makes "white" = "black". Consider a hypothetical wherein Plame was covered but the CIA didn't use its own "measures to protect" and, furthermore, did not do so purposefully - as a sanction for her running her own little domestic political black op with Munchy.

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

What Exactly Is Judge Walton's Beef Here?

By Eugene Volokh weighing in on Walton's footnote snark.

[RalphL]

How exactly does the CIA affirmatively protect the identity of someone it won't publicly acknowledge works for them? Wet Work? That would eliminate the need for the IIPA.

[PeterUK.]

"The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment."

Like sending Wilson to Niger,failing to get him to sign a non-disclosure agreement,allowing him to write the New York Times op-ed. Or more to the point not knowing Wilson was publishing his opinion piece,it is after all the CIA are they not supposed to be an intelligence gathering agency? There must be some mechanism to monitor staff and their families, otherwise stuff would be all over the web.

[RalphL]

Volokh and his commenters missed the obvious: Walton was snide because the Amici touched a nerve.

[PeterUK.]

"What Exactly Is Judge Walton's Beef Here?"

Because the complexity of the trial made his brain hurt.

[anduril]

Anduril,

The statute language is "measures to protect identities of covert agents", not the names of the agents.

...

Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 10, 2007 at 07:34 PM

You're right, Rick. Nevertheless, it would be child's play to go down the list of measures and ask, which of these are you currently applying to Plame? And how does that square with some of the things we know she's been doing? And then there's Andrea Mitchell...

[Other Tom]

Funny--there was a different point made by Loennig that bothered me more than the rest. I sent her the following e-mail this morning:

"Dear Ms. Loennig:

"I’m sure you’ll hear plenty from others concerning the deficiencies in the claim that Plame was 'covert' for purposes of the IIPA. Among others, there is the question of what constitutes service abroad—the issue has never been adjudicated, and to this day no one knows whether some number of overseas trips during the five-year period satisfies that condition.

"Far more astonishing to me is the following assertion:

“'But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been ‘""unfairly prejudicial’ to their client.'

"True enough, so far as it goes. But surely you are aware that Libby’s counsel sought vigorously during discovery to get any and all evidence pertaining to her job status, and Fitzgerald fought those efforts tooth and nail—and succeeded. Fitzgerald contended repeatedly that her status was utterly irrelevant to any issue at trial.

"Thus, having been deprived of any opportunity to probe the question of her status before trial, it follows as the night the day that the defense would resist allowing any conclusory comments about that status by the prosecution. It would, indeed, be “unfair” to allow the prosecution to avoid producing evidence during discovery, and then to spring it at trial. That is the very purpose of pre-trial discovery.

"Sincerely,

[etc.]"

I give up trying to make the indentation and spacing work out right. I hope the reader can tell when I'm quoting what she said and when I'm quoting what I said. As Ms. P. Hilton might say, whatever...

[anduril]

What you do if you're president is, you look at the report, locate the person's name who compiled it, then you call that person in and say: show me the measures that you pulled out of Val's file. You're president--you're entitled to know anything at some point if you can articulate a need to know. At the point that her name is in the papers, the president needs to know.

[Maybeex]

Yes, OT, I found that a serious misrepresentation on her part. Let us know if she writes you back.

[Elliott]

Thank you for writing to Leonnig about that, OT.

[Jane]

Ed Koch has an editorial about how low the NY Times has sunk, and a third of it is about the Libby coverage:

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?
cat_id=7&blog_id=60&blog_post_id=1196

[cathyf]

How exactly does the CIA affirmatively protect the identity of someone it won't publicly acknowledge works for them? Wet Work? That would eliminate the need for the IIPA.

Well, here's a few off the top of my head:

1) When the CIA decides to send the spouse of a covert agent on a mission, and wants to introduce the spouse going on the mission at an interagency meeting, all of the CIA employees who go to that meeting should have no publicly-known associations with the spouse who is going on the mission.

2) When any CIA employee discusses a spouse, child, parent, friend, cousin, etc. of a covert CIA agent, the CIA affiliation of the covert agent should only be disclosed

a) to people who have a need to know that the covert agent has a CIA affiliation;

b) to people who have security clearances that allow them access to TOP SECRET / CODEWORD information;

c) when the information is clearly designated as the TOP SECRET / CODEWORD identity of a covert agent.

3) The covert agent's CIA affiliation should never be disclosed to any foreign intelligence service.

4) Covert agents should never be assigned to the same cover as other covert agents. Otherwise if one agent's cover is blown, all of the agents with the same cover will be blown. Or if one agent moves from covert to non-covert status, then anyone cross-referencing resumes can data-mine out all of the other agents with the cover.

That's just off the top of my head. Anybody want to add some more to the list?

[anduril]

OT, after reading your letter I was so convinced that Leonnig would want to respond immediately to express her gratitude for your gentle and succinct heads up that I decided on the spur of the moment to hold my breath until you got a reply. Please let me know right away.

Rick, while I was off on my bike ride I was thinking over that IIPA reporting requirement thing again. I'm still convinced that if John Q. DOJ Lawyer received an IIPA referral letter from the CIA, the first thing he'd do would be to read the act--which, as we all know, is short and concise. And, when he came to the reporting requirements he would go no further until the CIA could assure him 1) what active measures of concealment they were taking or had taken during the relevant time period and 2) that Plame had engaged in no activities inconsistent with her "covert" status. Reason being, since her "cover" was supposedly "blown," if there was ever going to be an indictment the defense would demand to know those details--and they would get them in some form or other, since it would go to the very heart of the case. And that would lead to other potentially very embarrassing questions, like, have any other "covert" officers engaged in such attention grabbing activities as Plame did? And of course there would be Andrea Mitchell. She would definitely be called by the defense in any IIPA trial. So it's still my belief that these reporting requirements would probably be a prosecution killer in this case, as far as the IIPA goes. No surprise. Fitz would have known that, too.

[anduril]

cathyf, that's a good list. I would also add that the "covert" officer should never, except for very serious reasons and with stringent safeguards, appear physically at a location that may have been identified as connected with the CIA. Langley, for example. When overseas, they should also avoid all contact with US diplomatic establishments or diplomats that would not be necessary for an ordinary citizen, since those are known to be used as cover by the CIA. Of course, a somewhat but not entirely different set of rules would apply to CIA employees under diplomatic cover.

[Maybeex]

Whoa, there's a lot of bad information floating around that TalkLeft/Armando thread.

[Maybeex]

I would also add that the "covert" officer should never, except for very serious reasons and with stringent safeguards, appear physically at a location that may have been identified as connected with the CIA.

A covert agent should never accompany a CIA source to a public meeting with a reporter to discuss CIA business (which can be traced to her department).

[cathyf]

Ok, andruril's is #5. Here's some more:

6) When agents are acting covertly using false names or other cover, the agents should not use their own personal frequent-flier numbers on hotels, rental cars, air reservations, etc.

7) When physically moving during an operation (during a rendition, for example), pay cash at the toll booths rather than using an electronic transponder.

8) Use disposable anonymous cell phones, and dispose of them after just one call.

[lurker9876]

Make sure they ALL Sign NDAs as well as agreements that everything that they write belongs to CIA. And everything that they write are subject to CIA review along with incorporation of their suggestions before they can be published.

[anduril]

cathyf, maybe some of those could be condensed into a single entry: don't take the Italian security services for granted. LOL.

[lurker9876]

How about political contributions?

Should never use the address of a front like Brewster-Jennings for political contributions as well as CIA or their home address.

[Rick Ballard]

"So it's still my belief that these reporting requirements would probably be a prosecution killer in this case, as far as the IIPA goes."

Of course they are - and were. Why do you suppose that Fitz fought like a cornered rat to keep the issue out of the trial? Until his closing and the sentencing recommendation, of course. If Judge Reggie (and Judge Tatel) had the mental acumen to know where to buy a clue they would have planted a boot in Fitz's butt from the get go on the issue.

Instead they granted him all the pomp and splendor that an ethical representative of The People could ever hope for. It's just a shame that they granted it to a lying crapweasel playing hide the ball from before he even got the case file.

[lurker9876]

A covert agent should never accompany a CIA source to a public meeting with a reporter to discuss CIA business (which can be traced to her department).

What about public meetings such as the American Turkish Council conference?

[Pofarmer]

I'm beginning to think a large number of lefties are simply learning disabled, and unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts. It certainly explains a lot about their politics. Either that or they are just lying and using smear tactics to gain power. Either way it really doesn't change anything.

It's not that hard to realise that the CIA(or at least some portion of it) may have, in fact, considered Plames status covert. It's also not that hard to realise that under the relavant statute(the one that someone could be charged with a crime under) she possibly/probably could not/did not qualify.

IMHO, this is the main reason Fitz/Waltoon wanted the status left out of the trial. It left them free to float the spectre over events, and the jury, without having to ever support the supposition with any facts or make an actual filing. It also left Fitz free to float any suppositions about any parties he wished, (OVP anyone?) without anyone being able to say a darn thing about it. Bring it up, and ya just get, "But that's not relevant to the trial" while he hammers away at it.

[Maybeex]

What about public meetings such as the American Turkish Council conference?

I'm not sure I have a problem with that, as long as she isn't announcing she's a CIA agent or with someone else announcing he's a CIA agent.

CIA operatives have to be connected to get information.

[Pofarmer]

Damn, Rick Ballard said about the same thing with way more Venom. Nice.

[Rick Ballard]

"I'm beginning to think a large number of lefties are simply learning disabled, and unable to grasp even the simplest of concepts."

What? Are you calling me stoo stew su dumb?

(I think jboxgrad is the victim of Trollbegone®, so I'm answering for him)

[RalphL]

Thank you, Cathy and Anduril. I was thinking specifically about Novak's call to the CIA. Technically, they should neither confirm nor deny she works for them if she's covert (or they could lie). Is that an active measure?

They certainly blew her cover on all fronts.

[Maybeex]

Technically, they should neither confirm nor deny she works for them if she's covert (or they could lie). Is that an active measure?

It has always been my understanding that the government will deny any relationship with a NOC.

[Tom Maguire]

Far more astonishing to me is the following assertion:

“'But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been ‘""unfairly prejudicial’ to their client.'

"True enough, so far as it goes. But surely you are aware that Libby’s counsel sought vigorously during discovery to get any and all evidence pertaining to her job status, and Fitzgerald fought those efforts tooth and nail—and succeeded. Fitzgerald contended repeatedly that her status was utterly irrelevant to any issue at trial.

Excellent point. A few days ago the Colorado branch of Media Matters made the same argument and I let it slide because I figured, who are they, anyway?

I got all excited when Ms. Leonnig offered the same howler - so excited I forgot to write it up.

[cathyf]

maybe some of those could be condensed into a single entry: don't take the Italian security services for granted. LOL.

I'd put it differently: when conducting an op in a friendly country, make sure that you give them at least minimally plausible deniability.

(Of course you might argue that this was part of the op -- the CIA is trying to overthrow terrorist-resisting governments in both Italy and the US. I don't believe it though -- it would require that the CIA have a competence that they have never shown any sign of possessing in recent times.)

[Cecil Turner]

She also perpetuates the "missing e-mail" myth in number 2, as well as completely missing the fact that the NIE declassification process was a month-long affair involving several departments--not a whim of the VP's--in number 4 (along with stupid advice not to talk about Joe Wilson's disinformation). And since the "leaking classified information" charge falters under the definition of "classified information" (not to mention the fact that the actual leak came from Armitage . . . which she elided as irrelevant, apparently), number 5 is grossly misleading as well. I'd give her 0 for 5, and thought you were being generous to a fault.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I would also add that the "covert" officer should never, except for very serious reasons and with stringent safeguards, appear physically at a location that may have been identified as connected with the CIA. Langley, for example. When overseas, they should also avoid all contact with US diplomatic establishments or diplomats that would not be necessary for an ordinary citizen, since those are known to be used as cover by the CIA. Of course, a somewhat but not entirely different set of rules would apply to CIA employees under diplomatic cover.

Anduril, that's a very good point. What's more, when I was Noc'ed, it's exactly what I was instructed to do.

This has something to do with why I've always insisted Plame wasn't covert while working at Langley.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Thank you, Cathy and Anduril. I was thinking specifically about Novak's call to the CIA. Technically, they should neither confirm nor deny she works for them if she's covert (or they could lie). Is that an active measure?

Exactly. When I was NOC'ed, anyone at the agency would have said "Charlie who? Never heard of him."

[BarbaraS]

The point is that after confirming she worked for the CIA, Harlow and others decided they could use this so called leak somehow. And they are still trying to use it to obscure the real facts. This is part of the libs in the CIA's war on the administration. Remember Harlow now works for NBC which played a major part in the railroading of Libby. And State and Justice have jumped in on it also. Libs have infiltrated our government in droves.

This mess started out small but other libs have jumped on the bandwagon as it got larger. The CIA is all still trying to give this farce legs by refusing to say whether she is covert or not. It maybe they hope to still get Cheney and Rove in the Wilson's lawsuit and that is why they won't give a yes or no answer. There is no telling how widespread this thing has become but one thing is sure the bureaucracy and the media are in it wholeheartedly.

You know, when Clinton was elected in '92 he was more or less unknown but he was elected president. But in '96 I hated his guts in a way I have never hated a politician but he was still the duly elected President. The dims and the left won't grant Bush the same courtesy. They are the fifth column no matter what they say. Witness, they don't believe a duly elected President should be in office because they don't like him, they don't believe in the rule of law when it interferes with their agenda, the don't believe in the Constitution and regard it as a living instrument to be changed at whim. The dmocratic party and all its members are either socialist, communists and clueless. If they were not any of the above they would not be in this treasonous party.

[Maybeex]

Charlie-
When you were NOC, did you send emails in your own name discussing the planning and history of CIA missions?
Did you send overseas cables discussing the planning of CIA missions, overtly labeled as such?

[Deagle]

Mercy.. I'm getting really tired of all the leftist input regarding the Libby trial. Just where is the Executive action? Not only am I about to give up on President Bush's corrective action, I am about to give up on the Republican Party!

Come on - hey you guys in the White House - do something to counter this outrageous trial, or just GO AWAY!

[Pal2Pal (Sara)]

Glenn Reynolds "Instapundit" sums it all up:

SORRY, BUT THE FOOTNOTE MAKES JUDGE WALTON seem like an ass. And a biased one, at that.

[topsecretk9]

--SORRY, BUT THE FOOTNOTE MAKES JUDGE WALTON seem like an ass. And a biased one, at that.--

And you know? It really does. The notion that

A- these signatories don't do pro bono for poor or under-represented

B- shouldn't exactly examine a bank accounts to weigh opining on a worthy point of law ( it's a stinky decision but who care because he/she's rich - see Nifong) and

C - Libby might HAVE BEEN comfortable (maybe well off) but I've seen more to suggest that say Jane Hamsher is far more stinky rich than Libby - He's no Rockefeller

( didn't Hamsher maybe get Amicus brief filed one in her Natural Born Killer's lawsuit - 1st amendment?)

Anyhoo - Walton - i thought was made of saltier and substantial stuff - this was a silly and unnecessary disappointment.

[JM Hanes]

anduril!

I loved your link collection this morning. I'd tell you how many of those brainwashing video's I watched, if it wouldn't end up embarassing me some day and if I really knew now long I was actually watching, if I really was just watching whatever I thought I was watching when I found myself 5 miles from home on foot, in ear muffs.. My fav was this one which includes Bush pere & Clinton plotting the new world order and segue's into the CIA giving surgical brain washing "technology" to the commies. Great stuff!

Yuri Bexmenov strikes me as a real quotable guy:)

TM:

How about instituting a weekly free for all -- call it Sunday Funnies -- where folks can post their most amusing, or amuzingly bizarre finds (a la anduril above)?

[PeterUK.]

Another rule,
Don't marry an egocentric narcissist with a craving for upward social mobility and an addiction to the limelight.

Oh yes,and do keep a check on what he is scribbling in his den,it might be and op ed.

"What's that you are writing Dahhlink?"

"Only an op ed about Bush's lies about the Niger Yellow Cake".

"Do you think that is wise,after all I am covert as you well know?" She said looking at him through her lashes.

"Ah yes I remember that evening well,but don't worry your little head about it my Dear,Joeykins will take care of everything".

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Charlie-
When you were NOC, did you send emails in your own name discussing the planning and history of CIA missions?

Hon, when I was NOC there weren't no such thing as email. Seriously.

Did you send overseas cables discussing the planning of CIA missions, overtly labeled as such?

Nope. One might occasionally send a twx from a post office far from your home, carefully couched in neutral language, to a location that made sense for your cover.

[Cecil Turner]

Oh yes,and do keep a check on what he is scribbling in his den,it might be and op ed.

I'm tired of pretending Plame wasn't actively engaged in helping Wilson spread his disinformation. It's her expertise that provides the kernel of truth in each of his carefully crafted half-truths, and his only possible source for things like document routing and how he was selected. The fact that she was present for the two primary interviews (Kristof and Pincus), and the way those reporters accepted all Wilson's points as gospel, suggests her bona fides were used to prop his story. (Kristof's over-parsed denial and Pincus's contradictory testimony--itself contradicted by Woodward--are convincing only to the credulous.) Her energetic pursuit of the book deal (and whining over security restrictions) are just icing on the cake.

[Jeff Dobbs]

The NYT blows a kiss to the lefty bloggers who are mocking the letters Libby supporters wrote to Walton.

Libby’s Supporters Who Wrote to Judge Learn That Letters Take on New Life on the Web

In what may be a sign of things to come, the lawyers for I. Lewis Libby Jr. last month invoked the rarely used courtroom tactic: the “bloggers can be mean” defense.

The issue was whether to release the more than 150 letters written to Judge Reggie B. Walton of Federal District Court in Washington, nearly all in support of Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The article mentions several blogs. Quotes several blogs. Links to several blogs.

Interestingly, FDL and TheNextHurrah are both mentioned and quoted...but not linked.

[anduril]

Sunday Night Funnies would be impossible to control. My brother sent me a pretty good one called NEWDRUGOXYCLINTON, but I suspect there are a million excellent short videos out there.

[Maybeex]

Hon, when I was NOC there weren't no such thing as email. Seriously.
Ha ha ha! I remember those days.. It doesn't seem that long ago!

Nope. One might occasionally send a twx from a post office far from your home, carefully couched in neutral language, to a location that made sense for your cover.

Yeah, I wondered. I thought that Plame sending a cable and email about Joe's CIA mission (from CIA headquarters) seemed not-coverty. My instincts are apparently strong. I should have been a NOC.

[PatrickR]

That footnote from Walton isn't the first indication we've had that he is biased against Libby. During the trial he made a sarcastic reference to something like 'all that high-priced legal talent you've got'.

Not to mention the free advice he gave about Libby having to be crazy not to testify.

When Walton orders Libby to prison, I expect Walton's attitude to be mentioned in the emergency appeal to keep Scooter free pending appeal.

[Cecil Turner]

Speaking of letters, Scary Larry's got another post cheering the departure of Gen Peter Pace as CJCS, and claims Pace was removed from consideration for another CJCS term because of his. (Apparently it was poorly received amongst Democrat Senators, and Scary claims it was the issue, which a knowledgeable source tells me is correct). The hilarious thing is that Larry feels qualified to comment on Pace's moral and military qualifications (Pace spent more time as Chairman or Vice Chairman than Scary did at CIA).

Here's the meat of the letter in question:

I know Mr. Libby in a professional capacity, and my opinion of him is based on our professional interactions. From this perspective, I was always very impressed with Mr. Libby's professionalism and his focus and attention to the matters at hand. He impressed me as a team player when addressing issues and with his selfless approach to his wide-ranging responsibilities. I especially recall during my meetings with Mr. Libby, that when considering options and courses of action, he always looked for not just what was in the best interests of the country, but also for the right way to proceed - - both legally and morally. From my perspective dealing with Mr. Libby on national security issues, he served the United States Government extremely well.
I hope you find this information useful.

Pretty horrible, huh. And Scary Larry's on a roll here, badmouthing better men than himself. Steve Clemons piles on . . . which speaks rather poorly of him as well.

[Sue]

Hmmm...Powell advising Obama on foreign policy matters. Why does that make me look backwards to 2003 and Plamegate and Powell's prominent role that was brushed under the rug?

[Sue]

If I were a betting person, I'd bet it was over Pace's remark about gays.

[Cecil Turner]

There are several pundits on the left claiming the big issue was the Plame letter . . . and again, I've heard the same thing.

[Sue]

I know. But they were already down on him before the letter was sent. I think the letter is allowing them to avoid what their original issue was.

[Jeff Dobbs]

OK, if we're going to talk about the Walton footnote, I enter into evidence judicial snark of truly professional quality:

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained while working aboard the M/V CORONADO. Now before the Court is Defendant Phillips Petroleum Company's ("Phillips") Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
...
Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact -- complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words -- to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions.

With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.
...

It really should be read in full...I keep re-reading it thinking I should quote more here, but won't to save a few baby pixels.

[boris]

Gen Peter Pace was probably already taking on water over his gay comments. Too bad they were so out of step with today’s moderate sensibilities. I happen to think the comparison to adultery in the service, which also is out of step with moderate sensibilities, is apt and has nothing to do with morality. Nobody reasonably expects young military warriors to exhibit the “sophistication” of suburban yuppie allycats when it comes to adultery and separation from their spouses

[Jeff Dobbs]

In other news...

Mike Nifong ethics trial begins this week

[Cecil Turner]

Gen Peter Pace was probably already taking on water over his gay comments.

It was obviously a factor (though it shouldn't have been: it's exactly the problem open gays pose for unit cohesion . . . the serious bible-thumpers can't abide sharing close quarters with them; pretending that problem doesn't exist won't make it go away). But I'm told the Libby letter was the decider. (And that Gates could've fought it and won, but chose not to.) I was a bit leery of nominating a former spook for SecDef, and this episode did nothing to reassure.

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

The Chairman of the JCOS was fired for improper facade maintenance? Was he supposed to spit up something about the majesty of the US justice system's impartial and indifferent application of the law?

The needle point to be found in

I especially recall during my meetings with Mr. Libby, that when considering options and courses of action, he always looked for not just what was in the best interests of the country, but also for the right way to proceed - - both legally and morally.

might have found an oversensitive nerve, I suppose but I really wasn't aware that sycophancy was a primary skill requirement for the Chairman's job.

I wonder how long Adm. Mullen will last. If he's confirmed, that is.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Novak

Standing by the Wrong Guy

[clarice]

Judge Walton had no obligation to release those letters, and Libby opposed their release exactly because he feared retribution against those who were honorable and spoke out on his behalf.
Of course, the nutroots hoped they'd find something from Cheney so they could argue inappropriate executive branch interference. When that was unavailing, they contended it proved Cheney was willing to throw Libby to the sharks to cover his own misdeeds.

[Other Tom]

Good morning, all. I am still waiting for a response from Ms. Loennig.

I am very reliably informed that the reason Pace and the Vice Chief were not re-nominated is that they were Rumsfeld selections, and the entire confirmation hearing would have been a Rumsfeld-bashing circus, rehashing Iraq in the most embarrassing possible detail.

[boris]

That would be the proverbial 3rd strike then.

[Other Tom]

What the nutroots don't seem to grasp is that that footnote can't help the prosecution at all, whereas it may well hurt it. But I guess that's why we call them nutroots.

[Rick Ballard]

The Rumsfeld angle makes more sense. There really wasn't enough needle in that letter to justify a dismissal. The Mullen confirmation hearings will be interesting enough without a rehash of '04-'05.

[PeterUK.]

Boris,
"Nobody reasonably expects young military warriors to exhibit the “sophistication” of suburban yuppie allycats when it comes to adultery and separation from their spouses".

And it is inadvisable to allow such behaviour amongst those who have guns and bombs plus the training to use them.

[SlimGuy]

Anduril, that's a very good point. What's more, when I was Noc'ed, it's exactly what I was instructed to do.

This has something to do with why I've always insisted Plame wasn't covert while working at Langley.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | June 10, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Charlie

When I was in the service, I had a couple of occasions to work with NOCs on a need to know basis.

I know that you could point out some things that would totally debunk this whole Plame show and tell, but by doing so it would show methods used and put real NOCs in the field in danger.

So good on you for holding your silence as much as it would be nice to do the easy take down of the Plame game.

If it wasn't so serious this whole thing could be treated as a NOT NOC JOKE.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Over at NROs The Tank blog, speculation that Hillary had her hands on the Pace departure.

I have no inside information, but I see the fingerprints of SASC member Sen. Hillary Clinton all over this. To win in 2008, the New York Democrat and feminist must convince voters that she supports the troops and can be trusted as Commander in Chief. A vote on the re-nomination of Chairman Pace would have put her on the spot between her gay activist constituency and millions of voters who admire Peter Pace.

And a follow up post with further speculatation, including some Mullen history...

[PeterUK.]

Cecil Turner,
"I'm tired of pretending Plame wasn't actively engaged in helping Wilson spread his disinformation. It's her expertise that provides the kernel of truth in each of his carefully crafted half-truths,"

Wilson was allowed to get away with the feeble excuse that he "mis-spoke" when he declared the Niger documents forgeries,he knew all right and there is only one possible source for the information.

[windansea]

Jeff and Murray Wass have a thread going at FDL about their new book

Jeff:

I’m not sure which statement you’re talking about, but I would say a couple of things: 1)as Carol Leonnig nicely makes clear yet again in the WaPo today, there can no longer be any dispute that Plame was a covert CIA officer in the real-world sense of the term 2)as far as the somewhat peculiar definition of the term in the relevant statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Fitzgerald has stated unequivocally that investigators determined early on that Plame qualified as a covert agent under the statute. The meaning of the statute has never been litigated, as far as I know, and it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and all. However, the very fact that investigators themselves made the judgment that she was covert under the statute gives the lie to one of the main criticisms that has come from conservatives, most prominently Victoria Toensing, and that, strangely, is still coming from presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

real world sense of the term???? WTF does that mean?

[Jeff Dobbs]

Reality-based covertiness.

[Other Tom]

Here's a delightful off-topic item from Rasmussen:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views."

[Other Tom]

"Fitzgerald has stated unequivocally that investigators determined early on that Plame qualified as a covert agent under the statute."

Is this true? I don't recall his having said that. Can anybody cite a source?