Valerie Plame's Pension Benefits Track Her Service Abroad

Groan!  Now we are going to hear about Valerie Plame's pension?  Tedium, thy name is... Just One Minute - this is important stuff!  The issue of whether Ms. Plame was actually a "covert agent" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was identified as a key issue in her case by the eerily prescient James Taranto back in October 2003 when the case first made headlines.  And it appears that Mr. Libby may be the victim of either CIA chicanery or malfeasance by Fitzgerald; either way, the impact of the information presented below could affect Libby's sentencing, his hopes for a successful appeal or a Presidential pardon, and the reputation of the Fitzgerald investigation.  So tough it out, and on with the pension story!

One key issue from the statutory definition of "covert agent" is whether Ms. Plame met the requirement for service abroad.  From Mr. Taranto:

Left unanswered is the question of when Plame has her last overseas assignment; if it was before July 1998, then by July 2003, when her identity was revealed, she would no longer have been a "covert agent" for the purposes of   the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Victoria Toensing noted the same "service abroad" issue in 2005.

So, did Ms. Plame perform service abroad for the CIA after July 1998?  One place to look would be her CIA personnel files - by statute (Title 50, Section 403r, "Section 403r.  Special annuity computation rules for certain employees' service abroad"), CIA officers are entitled to an upward adjustment in their pension benefits for service abroad.  This is from the Friday NY Times, describing Ms. Plame's legal issue with her proposed book:

The letter [from the CIA human resources are to Ms. Plame], 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.”

More background and the full text of the letter are in this post.

So by law we should have guessed that Ms. Plame's service abroad was tracked in her personnel file (OK, I did guess exactly that last February), and in fact it was.

And the rest should fall into place nicely, yes?  In response to questions about Ms. Plame's service abroad, CIA lawyers or Patrick Fitzgerald and his Department of Justice investigators will cite her personnel file, which presumably has been maintained in accordance with standard CIA practice.  Her file will document the most recent period for which she received credit for service abroad, thereby resolving the point about her qualification as a covert agent under the IIPA, right?

Not so fast.

Patrick Fitzgerald filed documents related to Libby's sentencing last week [Sentencing memo,  Sentencing calculation, Plame employment history] which resolved the issue to the satisfaction of, well, the easily satisfied - that includes Messrs. Isikoff and Hosenball of Newsweek.  And was any mention made of her service abroad as tracked by the CIA personnel department under long established CIA rules?  Uhh, no.  The judge and the defense were offered a summary employment history which touched on her service abroad as follows (and I am quoting the Newsweek paraphrase, until I can get a copy/paste version of the government filing):

“She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries,” the document states. “When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity … At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”

Huh?  This is the dog declining to bark in the night - her CIA personnel file has the dates for which she received credit for service abroad, so why not mention that?  Is it possible that the DoJ investigators did not have access to her file?  No, per footnote 2 on page 5 of the sentencing calculations, we are assured that "The investigators were given access to Ms. Wilson's classified file".  [Is it possible that national security censors struck an anodyne sentence such as "As per Title 50 Section 403r, Ms. Plame's most recent credit for service abroad occurred in 2002"?  Would that really give away more than "She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries"?  Please.]

So, both the CIA and the DoJ had access to Ms. Plame's file detailing her dates of service abroad, yet chose not to present that information to the defense.  Why might they do that?  A suspicious mind would wonder whether they would omit that data if it were helpful to their case, or only gloss past it if her most recent date of service abroad were say, 1997, when she was recalled to the United States (as per this Vanity Fair profile).

This is not right - our legal system has discovery rules for a reason.  IF Ms. Plame's formal dates for service abroad buttress the prosecution position, that should be disclosed to the defense so that they will not waste time pursuing a false trail, or so that the prosecution can prepare arguments that the CIA formal procedures do not comport with the language and intent of the IIPA.  On the other hand, if her formal dates for service abroad support the defense position, that should be disclosed so that the defense can argue that this represents the best established practice and settles the issue.

But it is simply not appropriate for Fitzgerald to unilaterally conceal this from the defense, especially when it is a reasonable guess that it was concealed because it would aid the defense.

As background, Byron York has a number of pieces describing the legal maneuvering that led to this cursory summary.  The defense requested discovery on a lot of classified info including Ms. Plame's employment history and classified status; Fitzgerald insisted the case was limited to perjury and that Ms. Plame's status was not at issue; and eventually Judge Walton ordered [link] this summary as a compromise.  Let's note that Judge Walton reviewed the material before endorsing the summary.  Let's also note that he had a tremendous volume of material to review, so Ms. Plame's dates of service may have been overlooked (hidden in a file dump, as it were).  Or, since his final rulings restricted the trial issues to perjury rather than Ms. Plame's status, Judge Walton may have believed the IIPA issue was irrelevant.

In any case, it is safe to say that Fitzgerald was not eager to present Ms. Plame's employment background - maybe an embarrassment with her dates of service was part of the reason.  If so, it strikes at the heart of the prosecution's case - for example, in his affidavit to the Miller court weighing her subpoena, Fitzgerald clearly convinced Judge Tatel that his investigation was contemplating violations of the IIPA.  Did Fitzgerald also explain that there were serious problems with such a prosecution, such as an issue as to whether Ms. Plame was covered by the statute?  That affidavit has not yet been made public, but if the judges had ruled against Fitzgerald the case against Libby would have been much weaker.

Fitzgerald also resurrected the IIPA issue in his sentencing memorandum - the defense noted in their response that they were denied a chance to fully engage this issue in the trial phase; if that was compounded by the concealment of key information from the defense, there is a problem here.

It may be that Judge Walton will probe these issues at Libby's sentencing.  Or an appeals court may take some interest in how it came to be that Fitzgerald never disclosed Ms. Plame's formal dates of service to either the court hearing the Judy Miller subpoena or to the Libby defense.

And from another direction, Rep. Peter Hoekstra has tried to get the CIA Counsel to opine on Ms. Plame's covert status.  Per Robert Novak, as of April 2007 they were still mystified:

On March 21, Hoekstra 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."

I have a suggestion for Mr. Hoekstra - perhaps he can ask the CIA Counsel some simpler questions, to wit, what is the last date on which Ms. Plame received credit on her pension (under Title 50, Section 403r) for service abroad, and what is the CIA definition of "service abroad" in that context.  That should be easy enough for the CIA Counsel to address in this lifetime. [As protection against after-the-fact revisions, Mr. Hoekstra should also inquire as to the most recent date of service abroad reported in Ms. Plame's file as of July 2003, whether any revisions have been made since then, and the circumstances that led to those revisions.]

There may be an innocent explanation for all of this.  But in light of Fitzgerald's determination to conceal Ms. Plame's employment history and in light of the fact that a "service abroad" date which should have been readily available and clearly relevant was not disclosed, some questions for Fitzgerald ought to be addressed. 

Unfortunately, it is not as if Fitzgerald would never, uhh, shade his disclosures and filings - in the course of the Libby trial at least two transgressions were revealed: he had disclosed to the defense that John Dickerson of Slate may have received a Plame leak (from Ari Fleischer) but concealed the information that David Gregory of NBC News would have received the same leak at the same time.  And in the course of his legal maneuvering with Tim Russert, Fitzgerald failed to inform the court that Tim Russert (who was resisting a subpoena to testify) had already given evidence to DoJ investigators. 

Or for a more recent example of Fitzgerald's tactics, consider his recent sentencing memorandum.  Isikoff and Hosenball make much of the fact that "Patrick Fitzgerald has finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy: Valerie Plame Wilson, he asserts, was a “covert” CIA officer".

But the defense response provided a bit of clarification which Fitzgerald had overlooked, or forgotten, or something:

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.

Indeed it does.

Why was Fitzgerald dancing with the NBC stars?  Who knows?  Why did he overlook or conceal the information about Ms. Plame's formal dates of service abroad?  Let's hope someone asks him.

UPDATE:  Writing at firedoglake, Jeff Lomonaco, one of the brightest bulbs on the Plame Christmas tree, takes up the debate.  I take specific issue with this:

Now, it may well be useful to consider whether the CIA's standard way of proceeding would be to include the kind of covert work abroad that Plame did in the five years before the Bush administration blew her cover in its pension calculations, though it's far from clear that this should be controlling in the interpretation of the IIPA, as Maguire seems to suggest (and I'll come back to this).

[Big Skip]

But now Tom is telling us that Valerie Plame's pension benefits track her service abroad.

Well, yes, the CIA clearly "tracks" it in the sense of monitoring it.  I plainly am not arguing that the CIA handbook is dispositive on the issue, since I make the point that the defense would want an opportunity to examine and rebut the information if it went against them.  However it is a sufficiently relevant data point that it should have been disclosed to the defense.

Comments

[lurker9876]

Who are Larson and Edmond?

Why didn't Well's refer to any violations of IIPA and underlying crime?

[clarice]

{GOOD GRIEF!!}

Those by themselves would justify bail pending appeal. Other opinions your honor recognizes novelty. To the extent your honor would briefing, we could have briefing by eod Thursday. On those two issues alone, we meet the standard. We don’t have to establish with caselaw there is a probability, we only have to prove there are substantial questions, wrt to those alone, the court recognizes that the court was going into uncharted territory.

Walton Govt

Fitz: Your honor, we’d disagree, either wrt appointments clause or memory expert. It is not unique to deny expert memory, done after full and fair hearing.

Walton On issue of memory expert, I have no question. Testimony presented by witness was totally lacking both factual and from a legal perspective, if on that record, we’re not being gatekeepers as Doubert would require, if that were admissible, we could never keep out anything. I don’t see any basis for any potential reversal.

Walton: as far as appointment clause, the question is the extent to which there is appropriate supervision over Mr. Fitz and his operation. He was obviously confirmed by senate, occupies a position in Chicago as USA, he was tasked to conduct this investigation, even though AG, and DAG, have recused themselves, there was no indication they had recused themselves wrt supervisory issues if he did not conduct himself according to rules and regulations of DOJ.

[clarice]

lurker--that's the appointment of Fitz issue--whether it was unconstitutional...

[clarice]

Walton: as far as appointment clause, the question is the extent to which there is appropriate supervision over Mr. Fitz and his operation. He was obviously confirmed by senate, occupies a position in Chicago as USA, he was tasked to conduct this investigation, even though AG, and DAG, have recused themselves, there was no indication they had recused themselves wrt supervisory issues if he did not conduct himself according to rules and regulations of DOJ.

Otherwise it seems to me that people who occupy high levels of DOJ, it would mean people who have direct responsibility for DOJ couldn’t be brought in.

[note, this is relevant to the USA purge]

Jeffress: your honor said tension between these cases. Your honor spent 29 pages resolving that. You didn’t do it bc it was an easy question. You recognize there is no case directly on point. I have no doubt that your decisions are correct. Release pending appeal does not require judges to correct their own errors. What is required is that there be a close issue, one that could be decided the other way.

[Rick Ballard]

"I want Walton impeached for this disgrace"

If we impeached every mediocrity sitting on the bench who would collect the traffic fines? My God, the pothole situation in DC is bad enough as it is.

I'm not counting on a Presidential pardon (until Fred is elected) so let's hope for a lengthy appeal process.

[Sue]

Walton is going to put him in jail. And by doing so, he will force Bush's hand. If he releases him, pending appeal, it kicks the time frame on down the road. If he doesn't, Bush has to decide right now if he is willing for Libby to serve time in jail. Nice touch, judge...no politics involved in this decision...

[topsecretk9]

CathyF

--Is this a direct quote from Wilson's book? If it is, then it is the freaking smoking gun on the government "taking affirmative actions to conceal the agent's identity." Look, they told a freakin' foreign intelligence service that Plame was a WMD intelligence employee. There is no less "covert" an employee than that. It also makes the inclusion of this----

This is from David Corn's blog (but not sure if it's his blog post or a passage out of Hubris)

---------------

Libby should have requested to be considered an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo so that he could be released post haste.

[Maybeex]

Bush will let him spend time in jail. He has to. This whole investigation has been about showing that the admin isn't above the law.
Libby will be pardoned as Bush leaves office, just like the White Water people were in Clinton's day.

[Sue]

If Bush doesn't pardon Libby immediately, if he isn't left out pending appeal, Bush won't lose me on the immigration, or the war, but he will damn sure lose me on this one. He is close to doing that now, for allowing this farce to continue as long as it has.

[clarice]

Wells: all we’re asking is a right to file a full brief.

Wells Fitz told me it was his position that he did not see Libby as flight risk. Would agree to reasonable surrender date. I told him in light of that.

Walton: I don’t have a problem with having you all submit something so I can rethink it. How much time will govt need,

Fitz: If we could have 10 days.

Wells: that’s too long, we have to get to Court of Appeal. I would ask govt to file brief by Monday, we’ll reply by Tuesday, so if your honor does not change, we can get right to Court of Appeals.

Fitz: My only point is we don’t have a head start on brief, I assume they’ve though through what they’re going to represent.

Walton: Thursday for filing of defense. Monday for filing of, actually, Tuesday for govt, and

Wells We'll respond in 24 hours.

Walton; 1:30 on Thursday for hearing.

Wells: WRT surrender date, Fitz has no objection to reasonable date.

Walton: I don't do that, if I don't file notice bail pending appeal, generally takes 45-60 days.

Fitz: Wanted your honor to make aware of one thing. 30 months on obstruction. Just wanted to point out, if your honor was trying to correspond, one would be lower and one would be higher. By our read on false statements would have a 6, would mean guidelines range for false statement is 0-6 months, on other hand, perjury counts, level 14, but your honor found intereference enhancement, perjury 24-30 months.

[Cycloptichorn]

Sue,
If Bush doesn't pardon Libby immediately, if he isn't left out pending appeal, Bush won't lose me on the immigration, or the war, but he will damn sure lose me on this one. He is close to doing that now, for allowing this farce to continue as long as it has.

Seriously?

With all the problems we face as a country, THIS is the issue which will force you away from Bush?

I have a hard time seeing how pardoning a convicted criminal is more important then the war or immigration. But hey, to each his/her own...

[Maybeex]

I just completely understand why he wouldn't do it- why Bush wouldn't pardon Libby immediately.

The thing that has me maddest today is the enhancement for interference because Russert fought his subpoena.

[Jane]

Bush doesn't have to let him spend time in jail altho I predict he will. After all, who is left out there to impress? Which of the 69% of people who hate Bush will think any less of Bush if he pardons Libby? What a joke.

[Sue]

Seriously?

No, I just typed that because my fingers have a mind of their own.

I have a hard time seeing

You won't, though. When the Fitz tactics are applied to someone other than a Bush official.

[Maybeex]

What just happened at the end, there? Walton was UNDER THE IMPRESSION????

[Rick Ballard]

"The thing that has me maddest today is the enhancement for interference because Russert fought his subpoena."

Given any thought to Armitage and Powell sitting on their fat asses making vacation plans? Or Comer and McNulty in a group huddle with Schumer and Fitz?

[Cycloptichorn]

You won't, though. When the Fitz tactics are applied to someone other than a Bush official.

mmm hmm. I have no problem whatsoever with 'Fitz tactics' being applied to anyone. He was a prosecutor who argued a difficult case well, and got the conviction he was seeking.

You really should be angry at Wells and Jeffress. Their defense was not the best.

[lurker9876]

I don't have a hard time understanding Sue.

You totally disregarded the last statement:

"He is close to doing that now, for allowing this farce to continue as long as it has."

This is an unfair trial by jury led by an ignorant judge. Bush still won't lose me because it looks like Wells, Jeffress, and Libby can't wait to file with the Ct. of Appeals. I'm glad.

[lurker9876]

The Fitz tactics is what led an innocent man to convictions.

I still think that Wells and Jeffress did a great job but Walton forced them a very limited defense.

Let's hope the Court of Appeals will believe Wells and Jeffress this time. I understand that most of the judges at that level are more conservative. Think their odds are better there with better judges.

[Jane]

Cyclop,

You wouldn't know a good lawyer if you fell over him. You are utterly clueless. What you are apparently advocating for is dishonest prosecutions. That certainly doesn't surprise me and speaks volumes about you.

[Maybeex]

Oh yeah, Rick, especially when Walton was talking about how Libby should have been careful about talking about Plame. So I might have been lying before...but still, the enhancement added directly to Libby's sentence.

I'll bet Fitzgerald is bummed he didn't charge Rove. Maybe the GJ wouldn't indict, but with that jury and this judge, Rove would be in jail.

[Sue]

mmm hmm. I have no problem whatsoever with 'Fitz tactics' being applied to anyone.

Glad to hear that.

[lurker9876]

Hope the 'Fitz tactics" are applied to Cyclop. Surely, that would change Cyclop's mind very quickly.

[Jane]

Glad to hear that.

Just as long as it doesn't apply to Sandy Berger.

[centralcal]

Jane or Clarice: Way back when (during the trial phase) I asked if there would be a different legal team (attorneys) for the appeal. I thought the answer was yes - am I misremembering? I am very unimpressed with Wells/Jeffress.

[Cycloptichorn]

Sour grapes abound today.

By definition, Libby is not an innocent man. He is a guilty man. I understand that this is difficult for people to accept, but this fact will not change any time soon.

There is no real evidence that either Walton or the Jury acted improperly in any way. Claims that the jury was 'unfair' or 'rigged b/c it's DC' are without merit; disagreement with a jury decision does not equal evidence that a decision was arrived to unfairly.

Starting from the proposition that someone is innocent does not make a strong argument! Especially after he's been convicted of said crimes in a court of law.

I predict that neither the 'memory expert' (who got destroyed by Fitz in pre-trial, really horribly, it was sad actually) nor the 'Fitz improperly appointed' angle will fly. Both are weak arguments.

[topsecretk9]

-mmm hmm. I have no problem whatsoever with 'Fitz tactics' being applied to anyone.--

And so Mrs. Flame has three versions -- in Fitz world that's perjury -- and one story was to her Inspector General wherein she admitted she suggested her husband -- explaining why she lied to her inspector general ought to be fun.

So, I might be warming more and more to Fitzy tactics afterall.

[Sue]

Top,

When Fitz used Waxman's hearing to apply sentencing guidelines I wouldn't be looking for Fitz tactics against Plame anytime soon. Kind of convenient, no? That Waxman had his hearing in time for Fitz to use information from it to declare Plame covert?

[Jeff Dobbs]

NEW LIBBY SENTENCING THREAD.

[Sue]

From a reader at NRO...on a possible Bush pardon. I must say, I seem to have the same reaction as this person did...

"You have to be kidding me. Bush feels the need to “pardon” only those coming illegally into this country or are already here illegally."

[qquirl]

Bioshield is interestng. States are now competing for the new facility.

Wolfowitz should have gone along with Clinton's Foundation and the loans.

The Foley that was passed on is Plame's boss(denied). Foley was a PC, like Joe. The asassination gives Foley reason to deny and Plame moves up(classified).

WMD speeches in Canada? She was there 'undercover' with Woolsey without the CIA D.O. authorization, but she was a known bad agent.

[Jane]

Centracal,

It's rare for the same lawyers to prosecute an appeal who try the case. Different set of skills.

[topsecretk9]

--WMD speeches in Canada? She was there 'undercover' with Woolsey without the CIA D.O. authorization, but she was a known bad agent.--

Without DO authorization? She says she doesn't do that sort of thing.

[centralcal]

Thank you, Jane.

[qquirl]

Woolsey was sent to 'take care of the problem.' Woolsey is known and so is Plame. Montreal is a nice place.

Evidence that Plame went back in time to Vanity Fair using the Space Alien device sent by Satan to the earth in a UFO and not reverse engineered to change it from Satan. yes, Plame moved there:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=44285

[lurker9876]

By definition, Libby is not an innocent man. He is a guilty man. I understand that this is difficult for people to accept, but this fact will not change any time soon.

There is no real evidence that either Walton or the Jury acted improperly in any way. Claims that the jury was 'unfair' or 'rigged b/c it's DC' are without merit; disagreement with a jury decision does not equal evidence that a decision was arrived to unfairly.

Starting from the proposition that someone is innocent does not make a strong argument! Especially after he's been convicted of said crimes in a court of law.

I predict that neither the 'memory expert' (who got destroyed by Fitz in pre-trial, really horribly, it was sad actually) nor the 'Fitz improperly appointed' angle will fly. Both are weak arguments.

Cylco, I don't care whether Libby was ruled guilty by the jury. The demographics of this jury made it very biased. Libby is innocent regardless of what this biased jury decided. It is with merit all along. There's plenty of evidence that showed the jury made a bad decision.

Fitz proved that he needed a memory expert. He blew it.

Enough.

[PeterUK.]

Jane,For you.

Pelosis's son on Info-USA payroll

[RichatUF]

Sue says...

...If he doesn't, Bush has to decide right now if he is willing for Libby to serve time in jail...

If there is unplesant business to be attened to get it all over with quickly. Bush should pardon Libby and fire Fitzgerald, and for their troubles pardon Russert and Armitage. Maybe closing down the CIA wouldn't be such a bad idea either

RichatUF

[Jane]

Fox is now hedging its bets on Libby being free pending appeal; They are now reporting that will be decided next week.

[RichatUF]

I do it for tsk9, Rick B, and JM Hanes...

I really shouldn't have [its a rambling conspiracy fit for Laroach and the Executive Intelligence Review]

from the qguirl link...

...Indeed, this e-mailer may have been a member of Plame’s very own network. The message was a very intense “story” that appeared to contain a great deal of underlying coded information. Such code would indicate that the intel community was the e-mailer’s first intended target audience. One might surmise that the author was communicating that a great treason was being foisted on the USA, and that the major players were NOT disenfranchised “dark-skinned” peoples...

WOW! Be careful going to that link.

I read something on the net a while back that in the blogsphere, conspiracy theories function as jawas-junk hearders. And within the junk there are valuable droids to be found. These valuable droids can only be found by Jedis using the force. However the Jedi are beset by Stormtroopers and the Sith to tie up the droids with junk. The role of the Jedi blogger is to battle the Stormtroopers and Sith to liberate the droids from the junk.

It was kinda funny, and there is a Plame angle, and I don't really remember where I found the link or the Plame angle [and appearently didn't bookmark it].

RichatUF

[cathyf]

-mmm hmm. I have no problem whatsoever with 'Fitz tactics' being applied to anyone.--

How about Fitzgerald? He filed a false affidavit stating 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" even though he knew darn well that the her intelligence relationship to the United States was disclosed by the CIA to at least one intelligence service of a foreign country.

Filing a false affidavit. Looks like perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[PeterUK.]

"Starting from the proposition that someone is innocent does not make a strong argument! Especially after he's been convicted of said crimes in a court of law."

Yes so embarrassing when the accused has been found innocent on appeal,even more embarrassing to have to do so posthumously after they have been executed.
I'll say one thing Sicko,you will make a good little work unit,like those poor bastards who went to the firing squad praising Stalin.

[Jeff Dobbs]

cathyf:
Is this a direct quote from Wilson's book? If it is, then it is the freaking smoking gun

Doesn't appear to be in Wilson's book. Looking on Amazon, he discusses the aluminum tubes on page 330-331 (according to the image of the book, amazon lists it as 3460347). In mentioning the tubes, he does not mention Valerie.

That was a quick peek, using amazon's search function for aluminum. I also searched for Jordanian, but nothing seemed related to the tubes.....

[Jeff Dobbs]

to be clear....346-347 is what amazon lists the page numbers as. when looking at the image dispalayed on the screen, 330-331.

[qquirl]

Congress already tried to close the CIA.

Star wars is about choosing Lucifer. 'The Force' is using Lucifer. The droids or bots represent Satan. Satan created these because Lucifer and his worshippers always go after the human body. Dreams and diseases. The bots can't be affected and actually have the power to destroy all matter, fission. Hitler could have picked these, but passed.

As far as Fitz. Who did he know under the five year law? Did he know Plame? Does he know like Chayes, from Harvard?

[Jane]

Puk,

If we are going to be fair in the current climate, Pelosi should face the death penalty for that. I'm sure Cyclops would agree.

[PeterUK.]

Jane,
Yes,all those poor silver haired seniors robbed of their life savings,that really is an Enemy of the People.

[PeterUK.]

Jane,
Yes,all those poor silver haired seniors robbed of their life savings,that really is an Enemy of the People.

[wow power leveling]

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
ffxi power leveling
ffxi powerleveling
lotro powerleveling
lotro power leveling

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
ffxi power leveling
ffxi powerleveling
ffxi
ffxi gil
lotro powerleveling
lotro power leveling
lotro gold

wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow powerleveln
wow power leveln
world of warcraft power leveln
world of warcraft powerleveln

ffxi powerleveling
coh powerleveling
cov power leveling

[battery]

Even the idea! that someone! would run against! Kerry! is in line with the smear tactics of a desperate Republican party. Jeff Beatty is simply out to swift boat a valiant and brave American hero.

[fiesta online gold]

Besides, my friends usually give me some fiesta online gold.

[buy LOTRO Gold]

If you buy LOTRO Gold, you can gets more energy!

[mabinogi gold]

When you have mabinogi gold, you can get more!