Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[Annie]

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Ok, going back 2 years. cool. Should we go back 5, 10, 50? At which point does the current administration become responsible or not?

 

[Truthmatters]

They recieved documents labeled Secret with her name involved.

Now why would a secret Document need to mention a non covert CIA worker?

The facts are muddy only because they cant disclose much about what Plame was and had done without further endangering our national security.

You people use that fact to try and claim it means she wasnt covert when it implies JUST THE OPPOSITE!

If her status meant nothing they would have dumped all the info on her.

The fact that they have only told people like Waxman face to face she was covert and YES they want as little as possible about it out in the puplic is just more proof of who she was.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ok, going back 2 years. cool. Should we go back 5, 10, 50? At which point does the current administration become responsible or not?

which was written on June 10, 2003


This is when it all happened I dont see how we can discuss something that happend then without going back.

 

[Annie]

They recieved documents labeled Secret with her name involved.

Now why would a secret Document need to mention a non covert CIA worker?

You are contending it would be more likely they would mention a covert agent?

'
The facts are muddy only because they can't(sic) disclose much about what Plame was and had done without further endangering our national security.

based on what?

You people use that fact to try and claim it means she wasnt covert when it implies JUST THE OPPOSITE!

Again, based on what?

If her status meant nothing they would have dumped all the info on her.

ok, you base this on what precedent?

The fact that they have only told people like Waxman face to face she was covert and YES they want as little as possible about it out in the puplic is just more proof of who she was.

Ok, why only people 'like Waxman'? Seriously, nothing here provides proof of whom she 'was', in a covert or non mode.

 

[Care4all]

A perfect example of the disconnect between you and this argument.

One, Plame was NOT "proven" covert in a court of law.

Second, there has been no legal ruling in this case that she was covert IN ACCORDANCE WITH the law.

The DCI does not determine who is and is not covert. The law does.

How hard IS this?

There never is a court ruling on this determination, EVER.

It is up to the usa gvt based on the description in the law, (in this particular case the CIA) to acknowledge her status as covert, and that's it, according to the law.

No one goes to court to determine an agents status if that is what you are implying?

 

[Truthmatters]

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

you see Waxman is the head of this.

He read into the record a statement from the CIA that confirmed VPlame was covert at the time of her outing.

THAT is why they would tell him.

 

[Annie]

There never is a court ruling on this determination, EVER.

It is up to the usa gvt based on the description in the law, (in this particular case the CIA) to acknowledge her status as covert, and that's it, according to the law.

No one goes to court to determine an agents status if that is what you are implying?

More to the point, what are YOU implying?

 

[Annie]

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

you see Waxman is the head of this.

He read into the record a statement from the CIA that confirmed VPlame was covert at the time of her outing.

THAT is why they would tell him.

once again, you post something so out of there, no response is possible. Good going, dweeb.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact that they have only told people like Waxman face to face she was covert and YES they want as little as possible about it out in the puplic is just more proof of who she was.

Ok, why only people 'like Waxman'? Seriously, nothing here provides proof of whom she 'was', in a covert or non mode.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In the final analysis, a jury convicted Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operatives name. The CIA forwarded the matter to the DoJ for investigation, and that investigation could have led straight to the office of the Vice President. But we'll never know as Libby perjured himself before a Grand Jury and mislead FBI investigators. He was not convicted of leaking anything, he was convicted of obstructing an investigation into a possible conspiracy involving political payback against a person who embarrassed the administration. That such payback involved blowing a nuclear counterproliferation operation in a supposed time of war is damning in and of itself, and the CIA has yet to reveal the extent of the damage caused in the roll up of that operation.

As for those who claim 'Scooter' was railroaded, one can only ask, "For what...?" Evidence of his perjury and deliberately misleading statements was compelling enough that a jury convicted him on four counts. Had he told the truth, he would not be in his present straights and we would have the truth of the matter in hand.

As for the status of Ms. Plame, I am satisfied with the DCIA's and Mr. Fitzgerald's assessment of her status.

I am only left wondering if the inmates at any of the facilities he might be going to are having a last-man-standing-beat-down to see who gets to be the first to 'ride' poor 'Scooter'.

 

[Care4all]

More to the point, what are YOU implying?

What I am saying is that a court does not determine the "status" of agent being outed.

The Law, defines it, and the agency employing the agent in question of being outed, acknowledges to the Investigating prosecutor the covert status of the agent.

In this case, the CIA is the intelligence agency that had to acknowledge she met the criteria of a covert officer or a classified undercover officer, to Fitzgerald, the special investigator/prosecutor.

A court is not invoved in acknowledging an agent's undercover status in this procedure.

When Fitzgerald recommends an indictment, he presents his acknowledgement from the CIA of the agent's covert status as an exhibit or in an opening argument but this is not the court determining a covert agent's covert status.


gosh, that was a tongue twister and I am still not sure if I made it clear enough....

 

[CockySOB]

In the final analysis, a jury convicted Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operatives name. The CIA forwarded the matter to the DoJ for investigation, 1and that investigation could have led straight to the office of the Vice President. 2But we'll never know as Libby perjured himself before a Grand Jury and mislead FBI investigators. 3He was not convicted of leaking anything, he was convicted of obstructing an investigation into a 4possible conspiracy involving political payback against a person who embarrassed the administration. 5That such payback involved blowing a nuclear counterproliferation operation in a supposed time of war is damning in and of itself, and the 6CIA has yet to reveal the extent of the damage caused in the roll up of that operation.

7As for those who claim 'Scooter' was railroaded, one can only ask, "For what...?" Evidence of his perjury and deliberately misleading statements was compelling enough that a jury convicted him on four counts. Had he told the truth, he would not be in his present straights and we would have the truth of the matter in hand.

8As for the status of Ms. Plame, I am satisfied with the DCIA's and Mr. Fitzgerald's assessment of her status.

I am only left wondering if the inmates at any of the facilities he might be going to are having a last-man-standing-beat-down to see who gets to be the first to 'ride' poor 'Scooter'.

In order to address you post fully, I placed a bod-text number preceding the statement I am commenting on.
1. Speculation only.
2. Why he didn't simply use his Fifth Amendment protections is a mystery.
3. That part of your statement is true.
4. That part of your statement is pure speculation.
5. Speculation which assumes facts not in evidence.
6. Yeah, but one has to wonder why? If any damage was done as the result of an illegal action, I would think Fitzgerald would have used it as leverage to extend the investigation. Lots of speculation all around on this one.
7. He wasn't railroaded, he committed perjury, made false statements to Federal investigators, and obstructed justice. This is a fact of law now. Unless he somehow mounts a successful appeal for a new trial, that is. And to be honest, I don't see any way for him to get away from the facts of his conviction.
8. You're entitled to your opinion, just as they are. But again, opinion and legal fact are not the same thing. Perhaps this is another issue which will never be resolved.

 

[Truthmatters]

He used words like could have ad possible so NO they are not speculation.

They are possibilities

 

[CockySOB]

He used words like could have ad possible so NO they are not speculation.

They are possibilities

I would recommend you attend an English class sometime. By mentioning possibility he defines his words as speculation.

Are you out of grade school yet? Seriously....

 

[Truthmatters]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculation

Speculation that applies to this post is the third definition which involves coming to a conclusion.

He came to no conclusion he was merely stating a possibility.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if I say Trurhmatters may be a troll. I am only listing a possibility?

 

[Truthmatters]

The may implies there are other possibilites so yes

 

[Gunny]

They recieved documents labeled Secret with her name involved.

Now why would a secret Document need to mention a non covert CIA worker?

Not much up on classified documents, are you? There need be only a single classified word in a classified document. Any-and-everything else can be unclassified info and the document STILL requires a security classification.

The facts are muddy only because they cant disclose much about what Plame was and had done without further endangering our national security.

Speculation.

You people use that fact to try and claim it means she wasnt covert when it implies JUST THE OPPOSITE!

If her status meant nothing they would have dumped all the info on her.

Bullshit. Whether or not she was under cover at the time her name was given to the media is completely irrelevant to past classified/undercover operations.

The fact that they have only told people like Waxman face to face she was covert and YES they want as little as possible about it out in the puplic is just more proof of who she was.

Your speculation is proof of nothing.

 

[Gunny]

There never is a court ruling on this determination, EVER.

It is up to the usa gvt based on the description in the law, (in this particular case the CIA) to acknowledge her status as covert, and that's it, according to the law.

No one goes to court to determine an agents status if that is what you are implying?

Of course not.

You DO go to court to determine an agent's status when her alleged status is what is in question and what is being used as an excuse to conduct a witch hunt.

But the pattern is clear here. You are willing to ignore the written law to suit your political agenda. The same argument was made by the same people about Pelosi's trip to Syria. The law is specific and clear there too, but you refused to accept it.

 

[Truthmatters]

Her status is only in question to people who refuse the facts.