Plame To Sue CIA - The Irony And The (Near) Ectasy

Ms. Plame has filed suit against the CIA - apparently, even though her dates of service are in the public record, they are still classified.  Somewhere, Libby is thinking that no one told him Ms. Plame had classified status, but his ignorance did not lead to bliss.

But let's cut to the cool bit:

The C.I.A. acknowledged that the dates of Ms. Wilson’s employment had mistakenly been disclosed, although a spokesman said that did not mean the information was no longer classified.

“Frankly,” said the spokesman, Mark Mansfield, the release of the information in 2006, in response to a query from Ms. Wilson about retirement benefits, was “an honest-to-goodness administrative error.”

“The letter contained classified information and should not have been mailed to her,” Mr. Mansfield said, referring to Ms. Wilson. “As soon as it was discovered, we took steps to rectify the error, including notifying the clerk of the House of Representatives.”

The letter, from February 2006, was entered into the Congressional Record by Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, in January 2007. Mr. Inslee was introducing legislation to allow Ms. Wilson to qualify for a government annuity.

The letter said that Ms. Wilson had worked for the government since Nov. 9, 1985, for a total of “20 years, 7 days,” including “six years, one month and 29 days of overseas service.”

Christine Hanson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Inslee, said the congressman had assured himself that the document was not classified before disclosing it.

The bill in question was "H.R. 501: For the relief of Valerie Plame Wilson"; Ms. Plame had done her twenty years of government service but was a bit young to actually begin to collect.  And here is the full text of the letter:

Washington, DC, February 10, 2006.

Mrs. VALERIE WILSON

DEAR MRS. WILSON, This letter is in response to your recent telephone conversation with regarding when you would be eligible to receive your deferred annuity. Per federal statute, employees participating under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Special Category, who have acquired a minimum of 20 years of service, are eligible to receive their deferred annuity at their Minimum Retirement Age (MRA). Your MRA is age 56, at which time you'll be eligible to receive a deferred annuity.

Your deferred annuity will be based on the regular FERS computation rate, one percent for every year of service vice the FERS Special rate of 1.7% for every year of service. You will receive 1.7% for each year of overseas service, prorated on a monthly basis, after January 1, 1987 in the calculation of your annuity. Our records show that since January 1, 1987, you have acquired 6 years, 1 month and 29 days of overseas service.

Following is a list of your federal service:

Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ð(P/T 40), from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006--total 20 years, 7 days.

Based on the above service and your resignation on January 9, 2006, your estimated deferred annuity is $21,541.00 per year, or $1795 per month, beginning at age 56.

The above figures are estimates for your planning purposes. The Office of Personnel Management, as the final adjudicator of creditable service and annuity computations, determines final annuity amounts. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

And why do we care?  Well, as I said last February and last Wednesday (scroll down to "CHALLENGE ROUND"), Ms. Plame's pension calculation would hold a key to whether the CIA thought she had performed service abroad in the five years before her identity was disclosed to various reporters, which is a key requirement of the IIPA.  Of course the in-house CIA rules would not be binding on a judge, who would also be expected to consider the plain language of the statute and the legislative history.  However, a judge might certainly take a bit of guidance from the CIA rules, which presumably have some basis in law or established practice.

Beyond that, if a mere blogger could infer that the CIA has a record of Ms. Plame's overseas service it surely dawned on Patrick Fitzgerald to ask for this.  So - did he ask for this info (obviously, she would not have yet retired, but personnel records are personnel records)?  Did the CIA give it to him?  Did he fail to disclose to the defense the specific information that Ms. Plame did (or did not) get credit for overseas service for dates after June 1998?  Either Fitzgerald didn't think to ask (hmm...) or he chose not to disclose it to the defense (ethically dubious).  But if he did think to ask for the pension info, who thinks it would have been omitted if it was helpful to Fitzgerald's case?

Lots of questions.  Probably too late to help Libby in his sentencing, but still.

Based on the information available, about all I can say is that I expected to see more time overseas credited to Ms. Plame - from this Vanity Fair profile I would have guessed she was overseas more or less continuously from 1989 through 1997, for about eight years of service.

Well - some lefty blogger with whom Joe and Val are chatty might want to follow up on this.  Unless the answer is not what they want, of course.

MY, MY:  The Libby response on the Government's proposed sentencing fires a torpedo at Jeff's argument that Fitzgerald had made a good-faith determination in 2003/04 that Ms. Plame was covert under the IIPA - emphasis added:

Second, the government relies on a terse two-and-a-half page summary of Valerie Wilson’s employment history that was generated by the CIA, which purports to establish that “Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”3 We have never been granted an opportunity to challenge this conclusory assertions or any of the other unsubstantiated claims in this document, nor permitted to investigate how it was created. If nothing else, the fact that the CIA’s spokesperson confirmed Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to Mr. Novak calls into question whether the government was taking affirmative measures to conceal her identity.

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. It states: “The term ‘covert agent’ means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency . . . (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 426. The CIA summary of Ms. Wilson’s employment history claims that she “engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business,” though it does not say whether such travel in fact occurred within the last five years.  Further, it is not clear that engaging in temporary duty travel overseas would make a CIA employee who is based in Washington eligible
for protection under the IIPA. In fact, it seems more likely that the CIA employee would have to have been stationed outside the United States to trigger the protection of the statute. To our knowledge, the meaning of the phrase “served outside the United States” in the IIPA has never been litigated. Thus, whether Ms. Wilson was covered by the IIPA remains very much in doubt, especially given the sparse nature of the record.

So, the summary provided by Fitzgerald was quite clearly relying on a different definition of "covert" than the IIPA.  Hmm, the fair-haired wonder omitted that tidbit from his filing, and now the press has moved on.  So when did the DoJ make a good-faith determination that the IIPA was applicable?  I don't believe they ever did the research.  My thoughts from last Wednesday were here.

 

Comments

[Jeff Dobbs]

Friday night post, eh Tom?

yer not gonna...well....hit and run..are you?

I already offered my name to Walter...but he's apparently off camping.

What's your bid?

[Other Tom]

Trashy people, behaving like trash. Vanity Fair was the first clue...

[Maybeex]

Hmmm.
We also know that Valerie went on to do the same job after her name was in the paper that she was selected to do before her name was in the paper. Obviously covertness was not a requirement of her job at that time.

What's the P/T? Part time?

[exmaple]

Has it been mentioned the Senate report not only says Valerie had a hand in 2002, but also suggested her husband for an earlier trip in 1999? (page 39)

Rereading the report's chapter on the aluminium tubes is especially interesting this time around, now knowing Valerie led the CIA's atube caper.

[Sue]

What do the initials stand for?

CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ð(P/T 40),

LWOP? CIA D(P/T 40)?

[clarice]

I remember we discussed this at the time the Bill was introduced and the job history made public.

What is hilarious is claiming that after they leaked this stuff it remains classified. Some tradecraft at Langley!After downing a case of bourbon h & r could do better.

[clarice]

LWOP=leave without pay
P/T=part time
I assume D is Directorate of Operations

[Maybeex]

Sounds like it's time to investigate Rep Inslee for an IIPA violation!
After all, he was given information by the CIA, not told it was classified, and then released it publicly.

[Maybeex]

So when did the DoJ make a good-faith determination that the IIPA was applicable? I don't believe they ever did.

Had that determination been made by the DOJ, there would surely have been some documentation or even a scribbled note memorializing that fact. Where's the bit from Eckenrode's file to back up Fitzgerald's assertion?
To use Waxman's month-old hearing as evidence is hilarious.

[clarice]

Absolutely--And while you're at it, check Cheney's office for news clippings.

[topsecretk9]

--Based on the information available, about all I can say is that I expected to see more time overseas credited to Ms. Plame - from this Vanity Fair profile I would have guessed she was overseas more or less continuously from 1989 through 1997, for about eight years of service.--

that still doesn't meet the 5 year period - question - is there some stupid never considered loophole that maternity and then extra postpartum leave don't count against your time perchance?

[clarice]

Not under the IIPA. ts..The reason for the five year period is to protect sources abroad.After 5 years it was felt by the drafters that there was not the same need.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice--

I know, but I am wondering if the CIA is playing hinky on that.

[Enlightened]

Why would the information divulged piss her off so much?

What's not jellin' with Mata Hari's "I'm an Outed Spy Posing For Vanity Fair" story?

[Maybeex]

Tops- I don't think it's the CIA playing hinky. I think it's Fitzgerald.

[clarice]

BTW If you wish to write the President asking that he pardon Libby now, here's the addy:
President@Whitehouse.gov

[Rick Ballard]

I wrote and asked if he could have Fitz shot on the same day. Kind of a celebratory gesture.

[Tom Maguire]

Clarice - I have been modifying the post a bit, and the more I think about it, the more this pension notion tickles me.

First, DoJ investigators clearly talked to CIA personnel people - didn't the notion of a pension bump for overseas service ever come up? Geez, I thought every government employee knew every detail of their pension benefits.

So if they asked, what did the CIA tell? And how could Fitzgerald fail to disclose that to the defense or the judge, now that he is bringing the IIPA back into play?

Or did Fitzgerald seriously not learn this in 2004? Maybe. But if I were the defense, I would belabor the judge with the point that her covert status has never been contested, let alone verified, so it is absurd to factor it into sentencing. I would also note that Fitzgerald either got a very incomplete brief from the CIA, or failed to disclose some key info, but something is being hidden by someone.

Anyway, can you mention this to Libby's team, and might it still be timely? I have the odd feeling that this is a relevant detail overlooked by all.

[Sue]

Clarice,

Thanks.

[RichatUF]

darn it Sue asked the question before I did...

...Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ð(P/T 40), from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006--total 20 years, 7 days...

Leave without pay (LWOP)

D(P/T 40) Disability Part-Time 40 hrs per pay period?

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

and clarice...

...What is hilarious is claiming that after they leaked this stuff it remains classified...

fitzassified

RichatUF

[Sue]

This has probably been asked and answered, but do you get overseas credit for days that you aren't stationed or living there? If you travel on a 2 week trip, do you get credit for those days as overseas service?

[anduril]

First, DoJ investigators clearly talked to CIA personnel people - didn't the notion of a pension bump for overseas service ever come up? Geez, I thought every government employee knew every detail of their pension benefits.

So if they asked, what did the CIA tell? And how could Fitzgerald fail to disclose that to the defense or the judge, now that he is bringing the IIPA back into play?

Or did Fitzgerald seriously not learn this in 2004? Maybe. But if I were the defense, I would belabor the judge with the point that her covert status has never been contested, let alone verified, so it is absurd to factor it into sentencing. I would also note that Fitzgerald either got a very incomplete brief from the CIA, or failed to disclose some key info, but something is being hidden by someone.

I'm tellin' ya, this was never a good faith investigation--never. They knew upfront that there was no espionage violation

Espionage

and they knew upfront there was no IIPA violation.

IIPA

All they knew was that there were neocons they wanted to shaft.

[clarice]

Tom, I'll try to pass this on. The WSJ editorial today notes that this summary is not new. It was given to the Judge who, after studying it said he still had no idea what her status was.

If you pay attention to what is going on in the Black case, you may be less surprised to learn that legal research is not Fitz' forte--nor is a search for the truth before destroying defendants. This week it turned out that the expert auditor they engaged was directed to make several assumptions before rendering her opinion, assumptions which were dead wrong. The case involved tricky questions of Canadian contract and non-compete law and IRS questions and the prosecution was dead wrong on all of these.

It seems to me that particularly on the "knowledge" issue, Fitz knew from day one that the IIPA never applied and that would explain why he never sought (a discoverable) opinion or sufficient information on her pension and work history.

[anduril]

Interesting book review from Miami Herald. Somehow seems topical:

CIA agent tells the truth about the polygraph
An insider reveals much about the secretive agency and its controversies.
BY DON BOHNING

GATEKEEPER: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner. John F. Sullivan. Potomac. 288 pages. $27.95.

John Sullivan's job was ferreting out liars. During a 31-year career as a ''gatekeeper'' for the Central Intelligence Agency, he hooked up a record 6,000-plus potential liars to polygraph machines in 40 countries. Gatekeeper is his story, and it's fascinating and troubling.

Sullivan opens bare the controversy, including within the agency itself, over the validity of the polygraph, which Sullivan staunchly defends, but as ''an art, not a science.'' What's disturbing is that the book exposes the CIA as just another big organization replete with turf wars, petty personal jealousies, incompetents, bad bosses and just plain ''bad apples.'' One wonders how its internal squabbles might have affected the agency's overall performance, particularly regarding the 9/11 attacks and the faulty intelligence that led to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

While the subject may be esoteric for general readers, Gatekeeper sheds considerable light on aspects of what was -- and remains -- one of the most secretive and controversial U.S. government organizations. Despite a glossary, the book would have been better if Sullivan had avoided some 75 or so acronyms.

Still, the insider analysis is intriguing. Sullivan, who left the agency in 1999, believes a three-decade decline for the CIA ''of prestige and capacity to provide good intelligence'' began in 1973 when then-President Nixon pressured Richard Helms to resign as CIA director. ``The post-Helms CIA has been characterized by escalating politicization, internal and external turf wars and a steadily growing bureaucracy, all of which diminished the Agency's capacity to carry out its mission.''

Sullivan reports Helms was the last director to ''openly challenge an administration,'' unlike George Tenet, director under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush until he was forced out. Tenet had a reputation among insiders for telling his bosses what they wanted to hear.

Sullivan's interesting account of the agency's early years also reflects the country's post-World War II atmosphere in the wake of the anti-Communist, anti-gay witch hunt by the late Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin. At that time, he writes, ``the CIA's polygraph program focused on detecting Communists and homosexuals. Early tests had more questions dealing with Communism than any other issue, but the homosexuality issue was pursued equally vigorously.''

Among the turf wars within the CIA in which Sullivan became entangled was one battle with the Cuban Operations Group, due ''in large part because none of its [Cuban] agents could pass their polygraph tests.'' The group's chief complained to the examiners that not all ''our agents can be bad'' and ''you are doing bad tests.'' Unfortunately, writes Sullivan, the ``Cuban [exile] assets, with rare exceptions, were all bad.''

But in another widely shared opinion among U.S. officials, Sullivan writes that ``of all the intelligence services against whom I worked, I found the DGI [Cuban intelligence] one of the best, second only to the East German Stasi. The only reason I put the DGI second is because the Stasi had much more manpower and was better funded. With limited resources, the DGI was very effective in neutralizing our efforts to penetrate them and identifying our agents.''

Sullivan concedes there are ''many questions about the validity and reliability of polygraph'' and concludes that ``polygraph is much more effective in determining that a person is being deceptive than it is in verifying that a person has been or is being honest.''

Don Bohning is a former Miami Herald Latin America Editor and author of The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations Against Cuba 1959-1965.

[RichatUF]

tsk9...

...that still doesn't meet the 5 year period - question - is there some stupid never considered loophole that maternity and then extra postpartum leave don't count against your time perchance?...

I would think that the P/T classification would cover the maternity leave and ppd (the twins were born in 2000)

RichatUF

[clarice]

Rick B very funny. If a strange man knocks at your door tonight hold up the TB quarantine sign.

Sullivan may have been right about the Cubans--two of the agency's top agents were working for Castro.

I do know people there who worked in counter espionage who were dedicated and excellent but the entire analyst shop could be eliminated and replaced with google to better effect as far as I can tell.

[RichatUF]

anduril...

Thanks for the head-up, it looks interesting.

graf......Unfortunately, writes Sullivan, the ``Cuban [exile] assets, with rare exceptions, were all bad.''...

The more things change, the more they stay they stay the same. I wonder how well the CIA is handling our Venezula problem.

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

First, DoJ investigators clearly talked to CIA personnel people - didn't the notion of a pension bump for overseas service ever come up?

And Fitz fought like the dickens to keep these back and forths from Libby - I recall they were, he said, covered by attorney client privilege and I recall him saying something to the effect he was protecting the CIA rationale or some such

I recall us talking about it because it was clear it was the DOJ back and forth saying - you don't got squat and so then Tenet had to write a letter.

[clarice]

Sue, I don't know the personnel policies of the CIA. When I worked at DoJ and traveled abroad --for over 2 weeks at a time--I got some travel perdiem but nothing more.

[clarice]

ts, you mean the DoJ refusing to act on the referral letter for some time until Tenet interceded? I wonder how much detail was in that correspondence..Surely, if the CIA had prepared an opinion that she was covered by the IIPA, the General Counsel's office would have provided it to Hoekstra when he asked for such a letter..instead they are whining about how hard it is to determine.

[RichatUF]

clarice...

...if the CIA had prepared an opinion that she was covered by the IIPA...

could the CIA have had differing opinions at the IG and General Counsel and both argued aruged their point upward: one toward Tenet's office, the other to the Senate?

RichatUF

[clarice]

Anything's possible in that nuthouse, Rich. I don't think that is what happened though. I am told the referrals are made by little old ladies who work in an office reading news articles and typing out standard referrals. I think someone--probably Plame's boss whoever that is was mau maued by Plame and people working for them to press this and did so directly with Tenet who as you will recall had been invited by Poweell for lemonade and told that people in the WH had been pressing for his removal..Pardon me for being cynical, but I think that, not any legal opinion by the GC or IG impelled him to push this.

[topsecretk9]

--ts, you mean the DoJ refusing to act on the referral letter for some time until Tenet interceded? --

Yes, and I clearly recall that Fitz said all the correspondence contained the CIA general counsel office "rationale" or something and that was privileged and I recall that both anduril and JMH commented on that it -- there was something peculiar about it

and I don't know why i think this came up sometime during trial - not so much pre-trial but for that I may be mistaken.

It caused me to look up the CIA general counsel - who it turns out was discussed in a Time article -- with Comey among others --- in a war against the Torture issue i believe.

[clarice]

You may be right but then it would be stronger proof than the crap Fitz just filed and I'd expect he would have introduced that instead or used the original to get the present GC to confirm it.

[RichatUF]

clarice...
... I don't think that is what happened though. I am told the referrals are made by little old ladies who work in an office reading news articles and typing out standard referrals...

I just wanted to throw it out there...but this part: did so directly with Tenet who as you will recall had been invited by Powell for lemonade and told that people in the WH had been pressing for his removal..Pardon me for being cynical, but I think that, not any legal opinion by the GC or IG impelled him to push this

I do not recall this. I wonder if Tenet has a blurb in his book about it. The State Department really was a den of vipers under Powell...

RichatUF

[clarice]

Rich, I am not positive, but I believe it was in Tenet's book and the meeting took place in mid-July right after the Novak article came out. Powell was on the plane with Rove and others and overheard the discussion, invited Tenet over and told him about it.

[clarice]

From a quick google:"Tenet recalls in his new book that former Secretary of State Powell invited him over one Sunday evening for some lemonade, and proceeded to report his being witness to a lively debate on Air Force One where Vice President Cheney attempted to throw Tenet under the bus for the African uranium claim showing up in the 2003 State of the Union Address."http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eMLyM2TOPMoJ:www.thetexasblue.com/blog/josh-matlock+Tenet+lemonade+with+COlin+Powell&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us>Throw Tenet Under the Bus

[Sara]

Sue, I think there is a difference between temporary travel overseas and residing overseas. One is travel and expenses, the other would include any extra pay for living expenses to account for post differentials or perhaps hardship or hazardous duty pay.

I would find it hard to believe that the CIA handles overseas travel and/or overseas postings (overseas residence) much differently than the way the military does. At any given time you might draw special duty pay such as doctors do, or combat pay if you are in a declared combat zone, or hazardous duty pay like test pilots but unless you are on orders to live at a foreign base, any travel you do is usually considered temporary duty or normal operations, like say a sailor on a ship who spends nine months sailing around the Pacific but in port for 3 weeks in the Philippines, a month in Japaan, or five weeks in Somalia.

There is a big difference, at least in my mind, between an overseas posting and overseas operations or travel.

[RichatUF]

...While we are on the subject of Plame's covertness timeline, remember that the CIA told Waxman that Plame's CIA affiliation was classified under "Executive Order 12958", which was issued on April 17, 1995 (and revoked by EO 13292 on March 25, 2003). Unless the CIA was just baldfaced lying, her covertness did extend past April 17, 1995.

Posted by: cathyf | June 02, 2007 at 12:40 AM

I'm liberating this commentfrom the bottom of the previous thread because I'm confused [maybe a not is missing]. Since the CIA is saying that she was classified under EO 12958 they are being ambigious with her "status" after March 25 2003: seems kind of creepy...

clarice...

I'll have to wait..."Throw Tenet Under the Bus" is behind the Times subscription wall. I'll scrounge up the excepts from the book as well. It never dawned on me that Powell would be doing something like that-protecting Armitage was bad enough

RichatUF

[cathyf]

Posted this on the other thread:

While we are on the subject of Plame's covertness timeline, remember that the CIA told Waxman that Plame's CIA affiliation was classified under "Executive Order 12958", which was issued on April 17, 1995 (and revoked by EO 13292 on March 25, 2003). Unless the CIA was just baldfaced lying, her covertness did extend past April 17, 1995.

[topsecretk9]

OK...finding it

Link 1

After consultation with the CIA," Kedian wrote, we advise that we view any such documents in our possession as not discoverable."

The documents remain classified and contain information compiled for law enforcement purposes that is neither material to the preparation of the defense, nor exculpatory as to Mr. Libby. In addition, the documents are protected from disclosure because they contain inter-agency, pre-decisional preliminary evaluations and recommendations of government officials covered by the deliberative process privilege. Moreover, the documents also contain legal analysis and opinion prepared by a CIA attorney, as well as communications between the CIA attorney and the Department of Justice, that are protected from disclosure by attorney-client communications privilege and the attorney work product privilege.

Link 2

Scott Muller was appointed the CIA Director of the General Counsel office on OCt. 23, 2002

He will oversee the CIA’s legal affairs and serve as Tenet’s top legal adviser.

and

...These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president,..

...Goldsmith was not the first administration lawyer to push back against Addington & Co. At the CIA, general counsel Scott Muller had caused a stir by ruling that CIA agents could not join with the military in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners.

[clarice]

Thanks, ts--I will try to incorporate this into Monday's article.

[clarice]

Well, actually I reread the York article and feel as strongly as ever that the agency did not resolve the IIPA issue at that time. York notes that the DoJ sat on the referral until late Sept when the referral was leaked (to darling Andrea Mitchell) and pressure built up to go forward with it.

[RichatUF]

Scott Muller bio

graf...

...From October 2002 through July 2004, Mr. Muller served as General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency and from 1979 to 1982, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York...

Interesting he resigned as General Counsel when this dropped.

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

And this is fascinating...this is Muller's confirmation hearing in Oct. 2002 - that is when Democrats were in control of the senate..

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
BOB GRAHAM, Florida Chairman speaking

...Mr. Muller also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1978-1982. We heard testimony yesterday from Mary Jo White, formerly the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. This was part of our joint inquiry into the events of September 11. I know that the Southern District prosecutors are among the best and most highly recognized Federal prosecutors in the country...

... If confirmed, Mr. Muller would be only the second CIA
General Counsel to go through the confirmation process.
Congress amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 in 1996 to require that the person to fill this position be
selected with the advice and consent of the Senate. This
reflects the importance we attribute to the functions performed
by the CIA General Counsel...

...With the critical role played by the agencies of the
intelligence community in the war on terrorism and, perhaps
soon, **the** war on Iraq, now more than ever the CIA must have a strong General Counsel. This is, in part, the reason that we are holding this special meeting of the Committee today to hear from Mr. Muller, in hopes that we can expedite this process so that he will be able to assume his position prior to the adjournment of Congress...

[clarice]

SDNY--like Comey and Fitz ..Hmph

[cathyf]

One other thing about the timing -- is it possible that the time overseas is inflated somehow? I mean if someone is working 24/7, or at least consistently and significantly more than 40 hours/week, it would be totally reasonable to give them extra credit (work 60 hrs/week, get 3 years credit for 2 calendar years, for example.) But look at the numbers:

Dates of Service: CIA, CIA (LWOP), CIA Ð(P/T 40), from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006--total 20 years, 7 days.

That's 20 years, 61 days. What happened to the other 54 days? We could say that, oh, they charged her leaves against her. But her leaves -- maternity, ppd, the year-long leave after the outing s***storm, total up to a lot more than 54 days. Something has to have made up for those extra days.

[RichatUF]

Small world that SDNY...

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

Also - curiosity

After serving with the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, he:
Clerked in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.
Was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern
District of New York from 1978 to 1982

Wasn't Hillary on the WSPF?

[clarice]

No, ts..the "force" was the prosecution team. She was on the CongressionalWatergate Committee.

[RichatUF]

...That's 20 years, 61 days. What happened to the other 54 days?

I don't know if it works anything like the military, but it could be terminal leave-ie she took all her remaining leave at the end of her service, don't know how that would be calculated into her pension benefits? It is curious though, and wow, you've got a sharp eye...

RichatUF

[clarice]

You just noticed that, Rich? Cathy is the quickest , most logical, most sharp eyed person I know. I always feel like I'm 20 or 30 years behind her.

[RichatUF]

clarice...

You just noticed that, Rich?

It must be because it is so quiet in here...cathyf's comments are sharp, but pointing out the differing Classification EO's and then coming here and dropping the extra 54 days-too much, almost as fast as h&r [without the burbon]

RichatUF

still puzzling over what could Plame-Wilson have been doing stateside 1995-97 [virtual station perhaps, and how common is that practice]

[topsecretk9]

--Posted by: clarice | June 02, 2007 at 01:59 AM--
thanks, that's right.

--it is curious though, and wow, you've got a sharp eye...--

It's like a fricken laser beam.

[RichatUF]

Breaking News...Murtha's redeployment strategy

I've been thinking for a while that OBL or crazy AZ might just be hiding there...

RichatUF

[Elliott]

From fn. 1 of a defense filing that cboldt drew to our attention on the previous thread:

The government repeatedly claims that Mr. Libby has stated that his "disclosures of information regarding Ms. Wilson's employment may have been sanctioned by the Vice President." Gov't Guidelines Mem. at 6-7; see also Gov't Sent. Mem. at 12, 14.

This is a misleading characterization of Mr. Libby's statements to the FBI and his grand jury testimony. Mr. Libby repeatedly told both the FBI and the grand jury that the Vice President had not instructed him to disclose any information regarding Ms. Wilson to the press, and his notes of discussions with the Vice President corroborate such statements and testimony. Only after repeated questioning by an FBI agent and the Special Counsel about whether it was possible that the Vice President had recommended such a disclosure did Mr. Libby allow that it was possible, although he had no such recollection.

From the FDL liveblogging of Wells' closing argument:

I then introduced an affadavit, a stipulation, as to what Case Agent Eckenrode, he was the top guy, he was the one who called Tim Russert. It is stipulated as true. The stipulation says the November 24 report states, Russert does not recall stating to Libby anything about wife of former Ambassador Wilson, although he could not rule out possibility.

Could Fitzgerald's selective reading of Libby's grand jury testimony be any more ironic?

[danking]

"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."

Fitz called on his made up definition for Covert.

Plus, we have another fellow from the Southern District of New York making an appearance.

How many times was a juror's question admonished for asking about Plame's "covertiness"?

Can't wait for Judge Walton's turn now.

What else can Fitzgerald pull next?

Just when I thought I was out.....

[Poppy]

Since Scooter Libby was found guilty, it is clear he will have to be punished. I think
he should get absolutely the same jail time as Richard Armitage, who actually outed Plame and then lied and covered it up.

If not quite that much, at least as much as Sandy Burglar.....

[Sue]

Doesn't it sort of sound like Powell and Tenet were after the OVP? Both had major issues with Cheney. Both could have cleared Libby early on had either wanted to. Powell by naming Armitage, to Bush at the very least, and Tenet by shutting up Wilson sooner to begin with.

[clarice]

It seems that way to me, Sue.

[Dale in Atlanta]

"that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”

This quote from Tom above, EXACTLY proves my point of two days ago!

Plame's status as "covert" or "classified" is bullshit, it's a Word Game they're playing, based totally upon internal CIA policy, of not acknowleding anyone, who worked in the Directorate of Operations, even a "deskrider" like Valerie Plame.

She had NO "covertness" nor "classifiedness" under LAW; none, nada, Zip, Zilch, Zero!

I agree, we need to protect our Directorate of Ops people, or obvious reasons, but Plame was NOT "covert" nor "classified" at the time her name was published by Novack, and they've played a game bait & Switch, as well as Fitz, to nail Libby, under NO LAW!

The people we need to protect, are the ones who are doing their jobs, and KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!

When you team up with your husband, to undermine a sitting US President, American Foreign Policy, when you become a partisan political hack, when you pass inside information to your husband who is not cleared for it; when you have meetings with journalists, then you no longer deserve, nor should you get, even the benefit of the "Unoffical" protection that the CIA tries to maintain!

END OF STORY!

[Sue]

Dale,

As even 'kookier than the Wilsons' Larry Johnson has pointed out, there are two types of employees within the CIA, overt and covert. Even Scary defines his brief, but not brief enough, employment with the CIA as covert. But that has nothing to do with the law, as you pointed out.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Sue: does that lying liar and the lies he lies about "LJ", claim worked for the Ops directorate?

He was a "deskrider" for all of his brief 4 years, that's all!

[Sue]

Dale,

Yes. He claims exactly what I posted earlier. Overt and covert. He was in the covert category, according to him.

[Sue]

Dale,

The actual answer to your question is no. Larry doesn't claim he worked for the Ops directorate, at least not that I've seen. He claims he was a covert employee because there are only two classifications, overt and covert. He fit into the covert, in his own mind, anyway.

[clarice]

I don't know why you are surprised the CIA tried to pull a "covert" fast one. The only witness I ever desposed who lied about every single thing he was asked was a CIA official.

[clarice]

I don't know why you are surprised the CIA tried to pull a "covert" fast one. The only witness I ever deposed who lied about every single thing he was asked was a CIA official.

[lurker9876]

What struck me is that LJ opened his mouth by his claims of "covertiness".

I know someone who used to work for NSA more than ten years ago. And to this very day, he still does NOT open his mouth.

[PeterUK.]

Clarice,
Dissembling,manipulation are part of the job,comes as second nature to them,in fact they probably don't get hired unles they have lied in their CVs.
Absolutely joyous how the CIA has become the pinnacle of rectitude to the left,I guess the Allende business has been forgiven.

[clarice]

Still, one would expect they'd be better at it after so much practice--Plame's three different versions , for example, suggests she was utterly unconcerned about the consequences of being tripped up or unable to remember from month to month her previous tale.

[PeterUK.]

Clarice,
Val was the the one who was learning French,German and Greek when the nuclear physicists were speaking Urdu, Korean,Farsi and Arabic.Ms Counter Proliferator missed all the nuclear weapons projects which are of so much concern in this dangerous age.

[anduril]

Mr. Libby repeatedly told both the FBI and the grand jury that the Vice President had not instructed him to disclose any information regarding Ms. Wilson to the press, and his notes of discussions with the Vice President corroborate such statements and testimony. Only after repeated questioning by an FBI agent and the Special Counsel about whether it was possible that the Vice President had recommended such a disclosure did Mr. Libby allow that it was possible, although he had no such recollection.

This is the kind of thing that blows my mind--I mean, how dumb do you have to be to allow yourself to be pulled along like this? There is no doubt in my mind that this was a frameup, but did Libby have to help them fit the frame? There were so many points at which he should have insisted that his recollection was stale, incomplete, whatever and refused to speculate. He had every reason to know the kind of people who were questioning him--that he couldn't rely on their good faith. He had to have been very naive despite his legal reputation.

[Tom Maguire]

Re her resignation date - I think it reflects vacation time.

The Fitzgerald summary disclosed last week says she quit Dec 9, 2005; news reports from Dec 10, 2005 headline Val leaving the CIA.

But the Inslee letter cited in the post says Jan 9, 2006. Odd, but vaca could explain it easily.

Upon further reflection, I still think this is very significant.Either:

1. The CIA that went through her CIA personnel file never noticed her dates of service abroad wer tracked (as if!); or

2. The CIA noticed, noted to DoJ that her last credit was , e.g, 2002, but DoJ forgot to include that to buttress the summary (as if!) or

3. The CIA noted to DoJ that her last credit was in 1997; the DoJ then said, "Don't ask, don't tell", and the info disappeared from the summary.

I just can't believe that the CIA people never realized they tracked her service abroad, and I can't believe that DoJ would have omitted the info if it helped their case. A simple statement that "Ms. Plame received credit for service abroad in 2002" is no more sensitive than the actual summary, which said something like, "Ms. OPlame had multiple TDY abroad up".

[clarice]

Yes, anduril. An honest person who had no independent recollection of the conversation and only his notes would answer as he did--it is possible(anything is, of course) but I don't believe that is what happened and my notes support that belief.How naive to have answered that way, though.

The honor of the bar would be well-served by a systematic study of all the high profile cases prosecuted by the S.D.N.Y. when Scott Muller, Patrick Fitzgerald and Paul Comey served there.
I have a recollection that the SSCI was critical of their performance, indicating their quick hit style on the WTC bombing cases prevented us from learning more which might have prevented 9/11 but I've not the inclination to go search for that. (I do have the independent assessment that that was the case from someone who studied the handling of those cases, someone whose judgement I value most highly.)

[Other Tom]

As Libby's team pointed out in their opposition brief re sentencing, the meaning of the "service overseas" requirement for covertness under the IIPA has never been litigated, and no court has ever ruled on that meaning. Fitzgerald is now asking Walton to make that legal determination without sworn evidence, and without any opportunity for the defense to examine those who have provided the unsworn evidence.

I think every practitioner believes that his own interpretation of how he is constrained by legal ethics is the correct one. But both in this case and in the ongoing Conrad Black matter, Fitzgerald has gone well beyond what the people I know would take part in.

[Tom Maguire]

Plame's three different versions , for example, suggests she was utterly unconcerned about the consequences of being tripped up or unable to remember from month to month her previous tale.

To give the devil his (her?) due - is there any reason at all to think there *will* be consequences? Will Waxman or Rockefeller really go after her?

[clarice]

Nothing can stop any Congress person from referring the matter to the DoJ for a perjury investigation. Of course, it might have more weight if the Committee did it.

In fact, there's nothing to prevent any one of us from doing so.

With the inconsistent statements on the record, she surely would only take the Fifth if recalled and to call a witness before the Committee only to compel her to publicly take the Fifth would be improper.

[clarice]

Under Cathy's reading of the EO's--unless there is an administrative error, by March 25, 2003 (before the Novak article) Val's position was NOT classified.

OT:Next week in the Black trial the defense is calling the butler and Donald Trump. Steyn says this of the Kipnis motion to dismiss:
"the bigger news next week will be how Judge Amy responds to the four defendants’ motions for dismissal – that’s a ritual response after the prosecution rests but it was done this week with considerable and persuasive force. Many of the specific charges are very weak and rely on the lamest of inferences: In the Great 10 Toronto Street Heist Caper, was Conrad Black emptying out his office in compliance with an eviction order? Or was he trying to obstruct an SEC demand for documents?
Well, he’d already given 100,000 pages of documents to the SEC, including all the ones he removed in the heist. And he didn’t know of their latest demand, as it only arrived three days after he took the boxes. So any suggestion of criminal behaviour rests mainly on an Ontario court order on a matter entirely unrelated to the SEC. As far as I know, Ontario is not yet under the jurisdiction of the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, so even if Black breached a Canadian court order that’s not a matter for the US government to enforce.
Mark Kipnis has an even better case. His only ill-gotten gains were a total of $150,000 in bonuses, which the government argues was his commission on letting Black and co abscond with $60 million. Yet that’s less than the bonuses received by their own witness, Paul Healy, in this period, and their own star turn, David Radler, testified that the 150 grand was a genuine bonus for the hard work Kipnis had done and the outside legal fees he’d saved them. The Kipnis prosecution is entirely without merit. We’re told it’s unlikely that Judge Amy will dismiss all or even any charges, but if any deserve to be booted instantly into the garbage chute of history it’s those against Mark Kipnis."

http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=52&so=&ps=&sb>Folderol

[Other Tom]

I would love to see the committee recall her and force her to take the Fifth. Even though that wouldn't be done publicly (they just don't do it that way anymore), it would be a matter of public record and would take a hell of a lot of the shine off this fraud's halo. But I believe that Waxman would have to sign off on any effort to recall her (is that correct?), and it is more likely that I will sprout wings and take flight after today's three-Martini lunch.

It is simply not possible for me to imagine the Gonzales justice department undertaking a perjury investigation of Valerie Plame.

[clarice]

Draft a letter to the AG and let's test the theory. (We can leak to Andrea that a perjury investigation has been sought by a series of outstanding, concerned citizens impressed by Fitz' impassioned condemnation of perjury which obstructs truth finding.)

[anduril]

I just can't believe that the CIA people never realized they tracked her service abroad, and I can't believe that DoJ would have omitted the info if it helped their case. A simple statement that "Ms. Plame received credit for service abroad in 2002" is no more sensitive than the actual summary, which said something like, "Ms. OPlame had multiple TDY abroad up".

Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 02, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Of course. The CIA is a government bureaucracy, and is run by internal regulations specific to its own mission and structure as well as by regulations that apply across the board to all government agencies--subject to possible exemptions that would have to be approved by Congress. Therefore, their personnel section is trained to implement procedures to handle routinely all possible personnel actions--such as, how do we treat extended service overseas, how do we treat TDY in country and out of country, etc., etc., etc. They also have in house counsel who, when they're not trumping up IIPA referrals, spend a huge amount of time on personnel matters--as in any other government agency. In my past life I once got caught up in a dispute over TDY versus permanent transfer, involving benefits. It took literally years to resolve, largely because there had been a change in training procedures and I was the first to go under the new procedures.

The reference to TDY overseas is possibly significant, in that it is the only overseas service they can point to during the time frame (most recent five years) that is relevant for triggering the IIPA. The IIPA'a legislative history specifically references "reside and act" overseas, so bringing up TDY is utterly irrelevant in classifying her as "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. Inclusion of the TDY reference is therefore a subterfuge, in the context in which the Summary was drawn up. Someone decided, well, we'll say "covert" and if we're called on it we'll just say, oh, that's just the way we refer to that kind of travel. Deniability is everything--even if you have to admit to stupidity.

On the other hand, service overseas doesn't necessarily equate to "covert" for purposes of the IIPA. I am convinced that there were periods during which she did qualify as "covert" under the IIPA, but those days ended in 1997 at the latest, quite possibly earlier. Her continued association with Brewster Jennings was "cover" of a sort, but not of the sort that would qualify her as "covert" because it didn't require residence overseas. It did provide occasional light cover for her TDY trips.

It is simply not possible for me to imagine the Gonzales justice department undertaking a perjury investigation of Valerie Plame.

Posted by: Other Tom | June 02, 2007 at 01:03 PM

The reason it's impossible for me to envision any concerted GOP effort to go after Val is this: the Republicans would be accused of picking on, not only a gal, but one who has served her country for 20 years, probably including some "covert" service. They know that their very legitimate questions will be lost in the combined Democrat/MSM howl. They would be accused of playing politics not only with national security but with the safety of a still youngish looking mother with long blond hair (if confined to facial shots).

[Tom Maguire]

Hmm, I can actually feel different parts of the old noggin illuminating - looks like the second cup of coffee was a good idea.

Shouldn't Hoekstra, who wrote the letter requesting clarification of Ms. Plame's status to the CIA, find this pension info interesting? Shouldn't Bob Novak, who reported on the Hoekstra correspondence? Does anyone think they can get through to those worthies?

Byron York ought to find this all very interesting as well. Normally he reads my emails, so I can try that route.

[Sara]

What has me shaking my head about Valerie Plame Wilson is how many times she has been at the center of some kind of "outing" or security breach concerning her. Add in what was posted on JOM a couple days ago about her being on a KGB list of possible recruitable agents, it really makes me wonder. It seems that it either has to be that the CIA was running her as a double/triple agent or she is/was in fact a dirty agent who isn't very bright and kept getting herself caught. This is an area that I have not seen talked about much, but that I think could stand some looking into. How many other agents have there been that have popped up on the radar as an outed agent not once, not twice, but at least three times that we know about?

[topsecretk9]

--I would love to see the committee recall her and force her to take the Fifth.--

Here are contact links - let your voice be heard!

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

Since Gonzales has nothing much left to lose, maybe the AG should replace Fitz as U.S. Attorney so he can devote more attention his duties as Special Prosecutor for Process Crimes.

Shoot, it's been more than three years, and the SP/PC has only managed to complete the Administration half of his investigation! At that rate it'll take forever to the wrap up the Wilson/Plame half. These distractions in Chicago have just got to stop.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

In case you missed it, I responded here to your query on the accessory-after-the-fact business.

[clarice]

Tom, you can reach Novak thru the email addy at Townhall. If York doesn't run with this, I can blog it for AT.(I could add it to Monday's article but I think it might seem over technical unless someone can help me reduce it to two or three sentences.)

JMH--I thhink Gonzales should have revoked the appointment months ago --there is nothing else Fitz is investigating; the appointment was made by Comey on the ground that Ashcroft had a potential conflict; Ashcroft and Comey are long gone. Surely this is not an open-ended lifetime license to roam.

[JM Hanes]

anduril:

Embarassed to have to ask, but TDY = ?

[clarice]

temporary duty

[Roger]

Chicago. I wonder if Plame or one of her pals were visiting Universities?

The WMD nuke is not the future. The future is bio WMD. Plame hooked up with Joe, got to Iraq, and found the bio weapons lab. The doctor running it was freed by the Iraqi courts. She probably had a deal with CIA.

The intelligence committee had problems with the Afghanistan war and they tie into Plame. The one's who were there could get into trouble. Plame could have been covered under DoD/NSA. Section 502. The CIA analysts all work there now.

[JM Hanes]

Thanks Clarice.

Since I obviously have zero to offer on the personnel front, I'll content myself with the irony count.

How many times have our trolls reminded us that even when classified info has been revealed by one source, whether deliberately or inadvertantly, it remains fully classified? Who better to challenge that legality than Ms. Classified herself?

[clarice]

Yes.
Stupider still is the Agency's Get Smart Act where the released the information to her, she gave it to a Congressman who published it in the Congressional record and now claims it's still "classified"--Rather like Harlow blabbing about Plame all over town w/o warning anyone the info was "classified" only to have Fitz claim it's still classified information.

A never ending clown show is Langley.

[Sara]

Ex-spy Plame vows to battle CIA over free speech

NEW YORK (Reuters) - An ex-spy whose unmasking led to the conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide vowed on Saturday to press on with lawsuits against Cheney and the CIA for the sake of freedom of speech.

Free speech?

[lurker9876]

How can it be free speech?

Employees that produce or write something on the job belongs to the company that they are working for as per agreement.

[PeterUK.]

Did nobody notice the CIA was going out of its collective mind in 1960.No wonder they hired loonies like Chubby Larry and Counterproliferation Woman.
Having seem some of the nerds at MI5 exposed in recent years,I suspect intelligence agencies go the war of all civil servants,like recruiting like,until it ends up as some kind of bureaucratic "Animal House".

[JM Hanes]

Sara:

Talk about fertile ground for irony hunting, per Reuters:

Plame said she had no intention of endangering national security with the book but was entitled to tell her story.

"This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with political influence and manipulation," Plame said of the CIA's demand that she not discuss her service before 2002.

Ya think?

[Jeff Dobbs]

Wow, great link PUK.

Found this there too, titled:

LSD and the CIA
Government operated lsd whorehouses? Believe it!

[Sara]

Well PUK if someone made me Queen for the Day, I would fire all the ivy leaguers who have spent their formative years being indoctrinated with socialism and start looking to the streets for my operational agents. Unfortunately, our government has this idea that everyone who draws a government salary or anyone who draws a government salary might come into contact with needs to be some squeaky clean, never done anything or written anything the least questionable and then we expect them to go out into the underworld and operate with those who would sell their own mothers. And the restrictions just get tighter.

For instance, I have an acquaintance (not a friend, just someone I know about) who dropped out of high school in his junior year, spent several years on the streets, made money from who knows what, and then at the age of 35 decided to "go straight" and now he is married, owns a home in the suburbs and lives an exemplary life. He is one of the smartest guys I've come across, genius really, and a super genius when it comes to computers and databases. He taught himself Spanish and German and I've heard he also has a working knowledge of Farsi. He considers government white papers leisure reading. He would make a fantastic analyst and an even better ops guy, but he'd never be considered because of his shady past. A past that would make him even better qualified on the operational front.

[Sue]

Ya think?

Almost makes you want to laugh. Almost...