CIA-leak stories, lies fester and grow (LA Times Editorial)

[dooner]

Fri, Jul. 29, 2005
CIA-leak stories, lies fester and grow
Los Angeles Times editorial, posted on fortwayne.comFri, Jul. 29, 2005

Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling cover-up adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?
<snip>
It’s a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?– why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn’t even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting – is that he’s switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.

Perjury is your classic cover-up method, and still is used when other methods have failed. Advances in the science of spin since Watergate, however, have made a high-risk, Nixon-style cover-up unnecessary in many situations.
<snip>
The cover-up, in short, is going well.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/12254078.htm

[skip fox]

1. A new take on the story speculated on Bolton as primary leaker.

We know Bolton was one of the officials neo-cons forced upon the State Department in May 2001. The became the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International

We know that a secret State Department memo given to Powell by Armitage just before his trip to Africa in 2003 contained the information (marked secret) to the effect that Wilson's wife (Plame) was instrumental in his visit to Niger.

We know that a number of "high ranking administration officials" knew this information within a day and leaked it (winthin 2) to the press to discredit Wilson and his criticism of the administration with respect to Saddam's desires for WMDs.

Connect the dots. IF THE INFORMATION CAME FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO (as was speculated upon last week because of grand jury testimony in the Plame case THEN IS IS MORE THAN SIMPLY LIKELY THAT BOLTON WAS THE CONDUIT OF THE INFORMATION AND, THEREFORE, THE PRIMARY LEAKER!

We also know Bolton spoke to the grand jury.

Now President Bush is considering appointing Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. through a mid-term appointment.

If the press begins seriously putting this together and speculating upon it, Bush will either pull back or brazenly apoint him at significant political damage.

[skip fox]

3. Now I see that State disputes idea the Bolton testified to grand jury, but

how could he NOT have been interviewed by prosecutor Fitzgerald or, at least, the FBI in this affair??

He was the neo-cons' plant in State Depertment. His title was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Securtiy. The informantion, as we heard last week, focused for a time on the 2003 State Department memo with the Plame-Wilson-Niger information given by Armitage to Powell on his Africa trip. That information was in the hands of administration officials within two days.

Now there are MANY ways they could have gotten the material, but doesn't it seem wildly out of characer for prosecutor Fitzgerald NOT TO CALL Bolton in front of the grand jury? OR AT LEAST TO HAVE HIM INTERVIEWED BY FBI?

Is Fitzgerald setting him up? Does his testimony to the State Dept. inspector have a legal weight? Does Fitzgerald have access to this testimony? Is he planning to get Bolton on perjury in terms of this testimony?

Many questions.

Something seems "passing strange," as they say.

[klyon]

9. he could be the target of the investigation

Bush giving him a recess appointment if he is a target will look bad.
We will see if George uses some more of his characteristic bad judgment. When has he made a good decision in his whole life?

KL

[JDPriestly]

2. The Times is wrong to assume that

Traitorgate is "about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime." That may be correct, but it probably isn't because the CIA probably would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department if its lawyers had lacked probable cause of a crime. While it is unclear whether the outing of Plame herself was a crime, the outing of Brewster Jennings, which inevitably resulted from the outing of Plame, was.

Think of it this way. If a criminal shoots with the intention of killing a police officer, but hits and kills a neutral bystander instead, he or she is still probably guilty of and will likely be indicted for intentional homicide even if the bystander does not die until two months later provided the bystander dies as a result of the shooting. The Times needs to confer with an attorney before printing its political opinion.

As for the outing not having been intentional, see this article which explains the standard for knowledge, which is broader than the press seems to believe.

Element by Element Legal Analysis
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act and Why
Karl Rove
and Others Legitimately Face Prosecution Under It
by David G. Mills
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 22, 2005

In the last few weeks, the media and others have
been questioning whether Karl Rove and others have
committed a crime under the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act , sometimes referred to as the
“outing” statute. Many reporters and Republican
partisan pundits claim that legal experts seem to
agree that the IIPA has not been violated. The IIPA’s
detractors claim that a case cannot be made for its
violation because the proof required of the individual
elements of the IIPA present a very high bar for the
prosecution. Even Democratic partisans seem to concede
that it is likely the IIPA has not been violated. This
writer wonders why so many people seem to have
summarily concluded the IIPA does not apply to what is
(many would say finally) becoming a national scandal.

Despite the national implications of the IIPA at this
moment, there so far has been no diligent or thorough
analysis by any legal scholar of the elements of this
crime or of the application of the known facts to the
elements of this crime. Most analyses to date have
been cursory and faulty. When the elements of this
federal crime are properly analyzed, the IIPA will
likely become a very serious hammer for the
prosecution. Rove and others and their lawyers better
beware.

The known facts of the case will be applied to each
element of the IIPA, and show why Rove and others need
to be genuinely concerned about having violated the
IIPA.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Mills0722.htm

[Cha]

12. Yes, I've read several accounts of

this..

"That may be correct, but it probably isn't because the CIA probably would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department if its lawyers had lacked probable cause of a crime. While it is unclear whether the outing of Plame herself was a crime, the outing of Brewster Jennings, which inevitably resulted from the outing of Plame, was."

[skip fox]

4. My letter to Tom Oliphant

Tom,

You wrote about my work with Jack Gillis in 1998 on the Lewinsky "talking points" given to Tripp &c. I have never bothered you since (though have followed you and admired your work), but I'd like to pose a question which might be valuable to you.

Why was Bolton never called before Fitzgerald's grand jury? Why has he never even been interviewed by the FBI on the Plame leak? I don't have the answer, but the question is very "ripe."

We know Bolton was one of the officials administrative neo-cons forced upon the State Department in May 2001 (to watch Powell and report back) as the the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International and deal on WMD issues (therefore would have know about Plame or could easily have gotten the information after Wilson's article).

We know that a secret State Department memo given to Powell by Armitage just before his trip to Africa in 2003 contained the information (marked secret) to the effect that Wilson's wife (Plame) was instrumental in his visit to Niger.

We know that a number of "high ranking administration officials" knew this information within a day and leaked it (within 3 days) to the press to discredit Wilson and his criticism of the administration with respect to Saddam's desires for WMDs.

Yesterday the State Department tells us that Bolton never testified in front of Fitzgerald's grand jury or gave any testimony beyond answering the State Department chief inspector's questions about Niger and yellow cake (and perhaps Plame).

Fitzgerald called Rove three times. Yet he never called Bolton? And we are lead to believe the FBI hasn't even interviewed Bolton on this issue?

The issue is "passing strange," as they say.

Is something up?

[dooner]

6. Great way to stay in touch with Oliphant

As I understand it now, Bolton was interviewed by somebody regarding Niger/Plame.. but they say it was officials in the State Dept., not FBI or Justice. Right?

[skip fox]

7. Exactly. Here's how I put it a bit better this morning:

In the CIA leak case, people talk about Judith Miller's source and the fact that Novak didn't go to jail as major quandaries in the case, but I'd like to pose one just as vibrantly interesting as the others:

Why HASN'T John Bolton been interviewed by the FBI or gone before the grand jury? He would seem to be one of the primary suspects.

1.) he was loyal to the administration that forced him on Powell's State Department (to keep an eye on Powell and report back . . . that was the speculation at the time);

2.) as an undersecretary in charge of arms control and national security his charge overlapped that of Plame's in the CIA (he even gave an interview to State's inspector about the Saddam-Niger-yellow cake affair);

3.) the State Department created a memo which contained the secret ("S/NF") information about the Plame-Wilson-Niger connection in 2003 in response to Wilson's article;


When Rove is interviewed by the FBI twice and then testifies in front of the grand jury three times, when all others have been called, when even the president himself has been interview, what the heck is going on with Bolton? Something is way out of whack here, and it ain't the prosecutor.

Could Bolton be a target?

Could Bolton be cooperating? (That way he could truthfully say he has not testified since he only gave a deposition.)


We should start asking before Bush makes Bolton an interim appointee as American Ambassador to the United Nations. At least that's what I think.

You?

[dooner]

8. I guess I feel shell shocked

by the treachery of it ALL. And pushing this single line of thought seems almost minor compared to what has gone down overall.

The fact that Bolton lied about being interviewed on the Niger/Plame subject, got caught lying, called out by Biden, admitted lying, all while the White house is telling the media "off the record" that Bolton is going to be appointed as soon as next week without Congress... all of this seems so outrageous.

Not sure how pushing for accountability on the possibility that Bolton is a target of the investigation, or maybe just cooperating with Fitzgerald (either scenario) makes any difference to the media, Congress, or the public at this point. Although I get that it (and a million other things) should.

These people keep crossing all lines of decency, so it's very difficult to know the best place to make a stand... it feels like all hell has broken loose on so many fronts.

[skip fox]

10. Here's my main line of thought. (Your outrage has the some solidity and

intelligence as Franken's.)

The more we know, the more it seems that there will be multiple indictments for "high administration officials" in Fitzgerald's final analysis including at least 2 for Rove. (If not indictments, we'll have notifications of non-indictable wrongful activities--or some such--in the prosecutor's final report).

I say this because in learning about multiple leakers for the 6 reported contacts (John Dean says 6, we know of three: Rove, Libby, and Miller's source who will not specifically release her from her confidentiality agreement) and multiple (3-4) confirming sources, it becomes apparent what occurred. One administrative official discovered the Plame-Wilson-Niger relationship, took it to the White House Iraq Group, turned it over to Rove, who on the spot assigned tasks to different primary leakers/sources assuring no source called another source's contact (so as not to appear too eager), that no source's "pitch" was exactly the same but that their information was all given in an "off hand" manner (e.g., "Don't go too far out on this Wilson thing, I don't want you burnt").

To have 6 calls from 3 leakers is an indication of a coordinated endeavor. If there were the 6 leakers as Dean claims would make the case even more damning. But also consider the planning necessary to have enough confirming sources. Unsure of who the reporters may call to confirm, someone would have to make sure at least 2 other officials were ready and willing to confirm if called.

Therefore a master-mind would have been necessary to coordinate all these calls and confirmations (as many as 11 as was storied last week).

They would have gone to Rove immediately and he, probably in an emergency of the White House Iraq Group, assigned the roles, the stories and the stances, etc.

So he not only leaked by was the mastermind of a conspiracy to leak.

We can only hope he lead a cover-up and committed perjury as well.

[Uncle Joe]

5. This article makes the same mistake or omission

that many Democrats and talking heads do, they continue to focus on one law or statute 1982 without doing any other analysis regarding other laws that may have been broken by outing Plame. The corpwhorate media are just continuing with the same obfuscation that has been their M.O. since 1998 with their war against Gore. The 1917 law against disclosing classified information is much broader and may apply here, it makes no difference whether they said her name or whether she was undercover at the time. They release classified information, period. This borders on treason especially during a time of war, rememeber Al Quaeda anyone?

[Gyre]

11. Good observation.

Any ideas how to get the media to pay attention to their crimes, or, how to get around a criminal conspiracy to NOT prosecute their own by those in power? Seems to me a single federal prosecutor, in this political environment is a pretty slim straw upon which to rely.

Gyre

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Not only that, once a law's been broken, one is usually long since evil

Laws are the last resort of social order. To say that "I haven't broken a law to such an extent that I can be convicted" is not a reasonable claim of decency.

You are absolutely correct, though: the right tries to make the issue clear-cut, when there are all sorts of laws that can be applied. Yeah, fine, so maybe the 1982 law sets the bar so high that you couldn't even convict Rove handing the addresses of foreign operatives to Bin Laden himself, that doesn't mean that they're not guilty of very serious crimes.

Only criminals or idiots would claim rectitude because they haven't had charges filed against them.