Congressman Conyers discusses today's hearings

[understandinglife]

I just left a joint hearing of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and the House Government Reform Committee Minority on the "National Security Consequences of Disclosing the Identity of a Covert Intelligence Officer." The hearing was held at 10:00am in the Dirksen Senate Office Building (not the basement surprisingly) and televised live on C-SPAN3. If you did not see it, check for a re-run on CSPAN -- I highly recommend it. It was the most informative event on the issue of Rovegate I have seen.

My friends Henry Waxman and Senator Byron Dorgan were co-chairs of the hearing and we were joined by my former House Judiciary colleague (and now Senator) Chuck Schumer, Louise Slaughter, Jay Inslee and Rush Holt.

The witnesses were incredible, all former CIA officials, Larry Johnson -- a former CIA analyst and classmate of Valerie Wilson; Colonel W. Patrick Lang -- Former Director of the Defense Human Intelligence Service; Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer and fellow Michigander from Royal Oak; and David MacMichael -- Former Senior Estimates Officer from the National Intelligence Council.

<clip>

The bottom line: The CIA, not Democrats in Congress, determined a crime was likely committed here and made the referral to the Department of Justice. Does anyone really think they don't know who is covert and who isn't? Moreover, after a disclosure like this, the CIA prepares a damage report on the totality of the impact of the leak. One was prepared in this case. Does anyone really think that if the report indicated that the leak didn't do any damage to national security, and the report was therefore helpful to the case of the Bush apologists, the report itself would not have been leaked by the Bush Administration?

Those who deny these essential facts are only delaying the inevitable. Something very wrong happened here, wrong on a number of levels -- legal, ethical and moral. This truth is going to continue to come out and the facts will not be in dispute.

More at the link:
http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000180.htm

On a different topic, Keith Olbermann reminds us of an interesting exchange in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. While Mr Olbermann used the comparison to highlight one group of fanatics, the failed bombers of yesterday's terror events in London, I think the comparison to the terrorists and traitors of the Bu$h regime is apt.

And perhaps just importantly, these attacks prove the fallibility of the terrorists and of their conspiracies. Ironically enough, it was the British cold war spy turned novelist, John LeCarre, who may have explained the ultimate meaning of the day’s events, in words he put in the mouth of his protagonist George Smiley in the novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

Smiley, explaining to a protégée of the wiles of the Soviet spymaster ‘Karla,’ hears his junior colleague sigh, “So Karla’s fireproof.” Smiley snaps at him. “He’s not fireproof. He’s a fanatic.”

And fanatics, Smiley goes on to reassure him -- and, unintentionally, reassure us -- will inevitably make mistakes because they assume their cause is so just and their destiny so preordained that fate will make the mistakes magically disappear.

Fate makes no such deals.

Link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/#050721a

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus
REMIND US

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[Greeby]

1. Damn

I've woken up late and missed them, and the c-span website link won't work. I so wanted to see this :(

[LSparkle]

3. Me too ... Hope they have it in the archives if it's not replayed

[rodeodance]

4. Something very wrong happened here, wrong on a number of levels -

Best sentence!!!!!!!

[globalvillage]

11. It worked for me n/t

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. "The CIA, not Democrats in Congress"...

...which is KEY here, because the media has been propping up this story as "Dems on a witch hunt for Karl Rove, who deserves a medal."

THAT'S the key..."The CIA, not Democrats in Congress."

:toast:

[rodeodance]

5. nominated.

[rodeodance]

6. I am waiting to see this in the press--have checked several major sites

but nothing yet. bush and his mama. condi in lebaon, london but no hearings!!!!!!!!

[understandinglife]

8. Perhaps Skinner would consider launching a DU Activist Group effort ...

... to push the details of the hearings at all media and Congressional representatitives.

We could couple it with reminder of the DSM events scheduled for tomrorrow.

What do you think?


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Skidmore]

12. Do we know what press were there, if any?

If we have some idea, we can start pressing the media to put something out there.

[understandinglife]

28. AP: Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer

July 22, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

<clip>

Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" Johnson asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."

More at the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-democrats,1,2284959.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

So, it's been picked up by the LA Times and Yahoo within the first 10 min of release by the AP.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

29. Johnson's meme: "call the ugly dog the ugly dog." -- I think it will stick

From the AP story:

"Johnson, who said he is a registered Republican, said he wished a GOP lawmaker would have the courage to stand up and "call the ugly dog the ugly dog."

"Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this?" Johnson asked. "I expect better behavior out of Republicans."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-democrats,1,2284959.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

That statement is going to be big trouble for Republicans, everywhere.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

30. New York Times carrying the AP story as of 1529 EDT.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-CIA-Leak-Democrats.html


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

31. SeattlePI posts the AP story

Link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=CIA%20Leak%20Democrats


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

33. WaPo and Boston Globe running the AP story & photo

Links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201261.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/22/ex_cia_officers_rip_bush_over_rove_leak



Former CIA analysts, Larry Johnson, center, with former analyst and case worker, Col. W. Patrick Lang (ret.), left, and Jim Marcinkowski, right, testifies on Capitol Hill before a joint Senate and House committee, Friday, July 22, 2005, in Washington. The Democrats of the Senate Policy Committee and House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the CIA leak and the national security implications of disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

35. Reuters: "Former Agents Criticize Bush Over CIA Leak"

Former Agents Criticize Bush Over CIA Leak

July 22, 2005

<clip>

Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer, .... criticized Republican efforts to minimize the damage caused by the leak.

``Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere paper pusher or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it's a disservice to this country,'' he added.

Congressional Republicans have rushed to defend Rove and criticize Wilson, who took a CIA-funded trip in 2002 to investigate a charge that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, and later accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the Iraqi weapons threat. They said Rove is a ``whistleblower'' because Wilson told lies about the trip and he was trying to set the Time reporter straight.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who said he was a registered Republican, spoke harshly of the criticisms of Wilson and efforts to minimize his wife's job at the CIA. ``This is wrong. This should stop. And it could stop in a heartbeat if the president would simply put a stop to it -- he hasn't,'' Johnson said. ``That speaks volumes.''

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-bush-leak.html

Oh, hello "Congressional Republicans" ... turn on C-SPAN dudes and watch some "Reality TV."


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

42. Hunter: "The Plame Floodgates Open"

The Plame Floodgates Open

by Hunter

July 22, 2005

It's only been a few days since the Supreme Court nominee was hurriedly announced in an attempt to get Karl Rove off the front pages. Since then, all hell has broken loose.

<clip>

Lot's of good comments and links:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/162415/235

And what's flowing has got a stench to rival any sewer.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

44. Hartmann: "if Bush's own fingerprints are all over this treasonous act"

TreasonGate - What Did Bush Know, And When Did He Know It?

by Thom Hartmann

July 22, 2005

Political smears by right-wingers are nothing new. In the election of 1800, John Adams had a surrogate newspaper publisher write an article about "Dusky Sally," the half-sister of Thomas Jefferson's deceased wife, who was also one of the Jefferson family slaves. Jefferson succeeded in avoiding the issue, and his friends pointed out that it was merely about his personal life, not national security. George W. Bush may not be so fortunate.

Today comes the revelation in The Wall Street Journal that "A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified 'Top Secret,' and the passage about his wife's CIA role was specially marked 'S/NF' -- not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies."

Perhaps even more damning are reports that the Top Secret-S/NF document was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. Bush and Colin Powell (who had apparently requested it from analysts within the State Department) were flying to Africa in 2003.

<clip>

The urgency Bush brought to deciding on and releasing the name of John Roberts coincided relatively closely with a growing press awareness that the Sop Secret-S/NF memo with Plame's identity started it's long path to Bob Novak on Air Force One. Time - and an awakened press corps (and hopefully an awakened Congress) - will tell if Bush's own fingerprints are all over this treasonous act of political revenge.

Link:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/917

Headlines proclaiming "Ex-CIA Agents Rip Bush" may get even totally-in-denial Republicans to awaken.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

52. "He is not content with getting minnows but goes after the bigger fish."

A few insightful comments about Fitzgerald in the Financial Times.

<clip>

Even so, he ruefully registers Mr Fitzgerald's appeal. “Many of my law students would surrender a body part for a job in Fitzgerald's office. The office has many high-quality people, and it's a gangbusters kind of job. Prosecutors get to run secret grand juries, wire undercover agents, and interrogate mobsters as well as argue cases before juries.”

Mr Fitzgerald's work ethic also wins fans. A 2002 profile in Chicago Magazine noted that friends were concerned about his neglected cat, so they kidnapped or catnapped the cat, taking pictures of it as they dangled it over the Brooklyn bridge or putting a gun to its head, to pressure Mr Fitzgerald to look after it. The cat was sent to a farm.

What drives Mr Fitzgerald is harder to answer. He is considered apolitical. Rather than harbouring personal political ambitions, he is motivated by a sense of how public officials ought to act. His actions have had clear consequences. “State government has changed. George Ryan didn't run for re-election. City government is changing quickly. Mayor Daley has fired six commissioners in four months. And now the White House and its relationship with the press has changed because of this guy,” says Mr Stewart.

For White House officials keen to predict the future, Bruce Braun, partner at Winston & Strawn, a law firm in Chicago, points to his record. “He is patient, methodical and willing to work his way up the chain to get to the heart of the fraud. He is not content with getting minnows but goes after the bigger fish. He will leave no stone unturned.”

From The persistent prosecutor in pursuit of political sleaze

By Caroline Daniel

July 22 2005

More at link:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3f1a68b8-fac8-11d9-a0f6-00000e2511c8.html

Mr Fitzgerald appears to be the strict inverse of Bush/Rove and the neoconsters. They should be very concerned.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

47. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Distributed: "Rove Scandal Could Stick"

Rove Scandal Could Stick

by Mark Weisbrot

July 22, 2005

Distributed to newspapers by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services

The Bush Administration has ploughed through so many scandals that it is easy to cynically dismiss the current controversy over White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove ..... this one has a federal special prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) working on it. And Fitzgerald seems serious ....

<clip>

Based on what we already know, the logical next question is: what did President Bush and Vice President Cheney know and when did they know it?

Of course, the much bigger issue is the one from which Rove's troubles were born: a president and his advisors led us into a war based on false information. There was no attempted Iraqi purchase of uranium from Africa, nor could Iraq "launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given," as the Bush Administration claimed. Nor was Saddam Hussein in league with Al Qaeda, as the majority of Americans were led to believe. In a war that now appears to have been completely unnecessary, more than 1,760 U.S. soldiers have been killed and many thousands more have been disabled; tens of thousands of Iraqis have also perished.

More at the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0722-22.htm

I agree with Mr Wiesbrot - "Karl Rove's actions against Valerie and Joseph Wilson were just one small part of the Bush Administration's effort to deceive the public and make the case for war. But for now, this is the only part that is subject to legal scrutiny. And it's not going away anytime soon.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

7. I just nominated it too.

This whole mess is right up there with Bill Frist claiming that questioning Bush's judicial nominees is akin to religious intolerance and Christian bashing.

Leaking a CIA agent's identity is NOT a "partisan" issue.

:toast:

[BamaBecky]

18. agreed

[understandinglife]

9. Larry Johnson: "Vice President Cheney himself asked for more information."

<clip>

The decision to send Joe Wilson on the mission to Niger was made by Valerie’s bosses. She did not have the authority to sign travel vouchers, issue travel orders, or expend one dime of U.S. taxpayer dollars on her own. Yet, she has been singled out by the Republican National Committee and its partisans as a legitimate target of attack. It was Karl Rove who told Chris Matthews, “Wilson’s wife is fair game”.

What makes the unjustified and inappropriate attacks on Valerie Plame and her reputation so unfair is that there was no Administration policy position stipulating that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in February 2002. That issue was still up in the air and, as noted by SSCI,

At the end of the day we are left with these facts. We went to war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam was reacquiring weapons of mass destruction. Joe Wilson was sent on a mission to Niger in response to a request initiated by the Vice President. Joe Wilson supplied information to the CIA that supported other reports debunking the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. When Joe went public with his information, which had been corroborated by the CIA in April 2003, the response from the White House was to call him a liar and spread the name of his wife around.

We sit here more than two years later and the storm of invective and smear against Ambassador Wilson and his wife, Valerie, continues. I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I wanted a President who knew what the meaning of “is” was. I was tired of political operatives who spent endless hours on cable news channels parsing words. I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and new ethical standards to Washington.

So where are we? The President has flip flopped and backed away from his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are implicated in these leaks. Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson. This is wrong.

Without firm action by President Bush to return to those principles he promised to follow when he came to Washington, I fear our political debate in this country will degenerate into an argument about what the meaning of “leak” is. We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot expend its efforts attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.

Important excerpts from Mr Larry Johnson's testimony, July 21, 2005.

More at link:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/correcting_the_.html

As the statements of the witnesses and Members of Congress appear online, I'll add them to this thread for convenient reference.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

26. "That is the true scandal, which has yet to be properly explained."

Rovegate: The scandal that lays bare the cynicism behind Bush's war in Iraq

It has the classic ingredients of a spy thriller: undercover agents, investigative journalists and a Middle Eastern dictator. But as Rupert Cornwell reports, this Washington tale is fact, not fiction

July 22, 2005

<clip>

All of this spells trouble, sapping the administration's moral authority and resurrecting accusations of misuse of pre-war intelligence. Its carefully cultivated reputation for straight dealing is at risk. And this President's equivocations over how he would punish anyone involved sounds rather like that of his predecessor Bill Clinton, of "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" fame.

<clip>

Despite Ms Miller's imprisonment, the Plame affair is unlikely to be a landmark in the struggle for press freedom. In laying bare the Watergate scandal, the use of secret sources rendered a service to the nation. In this case, the confidentiality issue involves sources who may have committed a crime. Today, Ms Miller is a heroine. But not long ago, she was prominent in publishing the WMD misinformation provided by an unidentified source named Ahmad Chalabi.

And so the wheel comes full circle. This tacky, third-rate leak that is starting to scar the President's second term springs from the great deception executed in his first term, luring the US into a war that 60 per cent of Americans now believe was misconceived.

That is the true scandal, which has yet to be properly explained.

Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article300731.ece

Mr Bush you are a traitor and a war criminal. Parse that.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

10. Congresswoman Slaughter's opening remarks:

Rep. Slaughter's Opening Remarks:

I would like to thank our esteemed co-chairs this morning, Senator Dorgan and Congressman Waxman for calling this special joint hearing of Congress.

George W. Bush campaigned on `restoring dignity' to the White House. During his first inaugural address, he affirmed a commitment "to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character."

However, time and events have conspired to reveal a different attitude in the Oval Office.

Today, this White House seems more accurately defined by a striking form of relativism, a willingness to twist the truth and a propensity to use power for personal and political advantage.

Over the course of the last 5 years, transparency of government operations has steadily eroded.

Open access to information critical to our democracy has been replaced by closed-door meetings, and "no-comment."

In fact, we can recount any number of incidents for which the Administration has failed to take responsibility or be held accountable by the Republican Controlled Congress...

...from the inaccurate intelligence that led to our invasion of Iraq, to the detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib...

...from the revelations contained in the Downing Street memos to the realization that at least 20 federal agencies used tax-payer dollars to produce partisan television segments disguised to look like impartial news reports...

Time and time again this Administration has been let off the hook by their allies in Congress

Worse yet, those who have dared to demand answers and accountability from the Administration have gone from being celebrated as honored patriots, to being attacked as subversive dissidents.

The deepening scandal surrounding the leaked identity of Covert CIA Operative Valerie Plame is perhaps the most poignant example of this to date.

- At its worst, treason was committed by high ranking White House officials.

- At its best, we have witnessed a startling abuse of the power by this Administration.

One which has seriously compromised our National Security... jeopardized the war on terror... and placed the lives of a covert CIA operative and her contacts in danger. ...All for what so far appears to be a reprehensible act of political retribution.

What we know at this point is that on July 14, 2003, the covert identity of a CIA agent was revealed to the American public by conservative commentator Robert Novak.

As a direct result, an entire intelligence network was destroyed, and our ability to thwart another terrorist attack was recklessly compromised.

We know that a State Department memo containing Valerie Plame's identity was marked as classified and circulated on June 10, 2003 under the direction of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Marc Grossman.

We know that the Secretary of State Colin Powell requested a copy of the memo the day after Ambassador Joe Wilson's op-ed discrediting the Administration's case for war in Iraq appeared in the New York Times.

We know that on July 7, 2003, Secretary Powell took the memo on Air Force One where other senior Administration officials may have had access to it.

We also understand that Press Secretary Ari Fleisher may have had access to the same document.

That same day, Karl Rove, the President's Deputy Chief of staff and senior political advisor discussed the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife with Time reporter Mathew Cooper.

We also know that the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, discussed Valerie Plame's identity with reporters.

Despite the information we have about the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, many questions remain:

Aside from Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Colin Powell and Ari Fleischer who else in the White House had access to the classified memo?

Given that so many of the President's men had access to the memo, it is incumbent upon Congress, the Special Prosecutor and the American People to ask the following difficult questions...

What did President Bush know about the Valerie Plame leak, and when did he know it?

Is it possible that he and Vice President Cheney, along with most of Bush's inner circle, could have known about this plot to exact retribution on Ambassador Wilson at the expense of national security?

Is it possible that President Bush or Vice President Cheney could have been involved themselves?

These are tough, serious questions that must be addressed.

And while we will not get to the bottom of these questions here today, it is my hope we will gain a more fundamental understanding of just how serious this breach of national security was.

A Senior White House official disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent - a statement of fact that is not disputed.

It concerns the direct and gross abuse of power inside the walls of the White House at the highest levels.

The United States Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct a full, bipartisan investigation into this matter immediately.

Like former Republican national Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, I believe the real-world implications of this abuse are far more serious than Watergate, and warrant the same level of scrutiny and investigation.

This is not just dirty politics. It is the compromise of national security in a time of war.

Before I close, I would like to address one other point which I believe is particularly important.

When it was confirmed that Valerie Plame's identity was disclosed to reporters from inside the White House...The President made a promise directly to the American people.

That he would fire anyone in his Administration involved in the leak.

But last week, as his deputy chief of staff emerged as the primary culprit, the President broke that promise.

In one defining moment, the President of the United States took the official stance that anything which isn't technically illegal is legitimate.

In doing so, he unequivocally redefined the standard for service in the highest levels of government. Apparently, the actions of All the President's Men have only to meet the abysmally low ethical threshold ... of not being a convictable crime in a court of law, in order to be acceptable to our President.

This is something that should deeply concern all my fellow Americans.

Such a precedent inescapably opens the door to countless, unchecked abuses of power in the very heart of our democracy.

Unfortunately, these misguided priorities have come to define this White House.

And as a result, have not only damaged national security, but have diminished the office of the Presidency.

Yet, despite the gravity of these incidents, we have failed to receive the answers demanded from the White House, and the pursuits for accountability and justice have fallen by the wayside.

We cannot let that happen this time. Americans deserves more than "no comment"

We owe it to Valerie Wilson, and to all of America's courageous intelligence agents, to bring those who leaked her identity to justice.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from our expert witnesses this morning on these serious issues.

Link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/22/10541/1482

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I tuned in late and missed this. Thanks!

[merbex]

16. Brilliant,clear, and why the White House is shitting bricks

Rep. Slaughter I appluad you and all the others present today who are trying to get our country back.

[understandinglife]

40. Links to all presentations at today's hearing:

Former Intelligence Officials Testify About Damage Caused by Outing of Covert CIA Agent

July 22, 2005

At a hearing co-chaired by Rep. Waxman and Senator Byron Dorgan, several former intelligence officials testify about the damage to national security caused by the White House outing of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson.

Rep. Waxman's Opening Statement

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722123920-40581.pdf

Rep. Holt's Opening Statement

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722142435-15458.pdf

Rep. Slaughter's Opening Statement

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722142330-14066.pdf

Sen. Dorgan's Opening Statement

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722171759-91552.pdf

Statement of James Marcinkowski

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722113239-05007.pdf

Statement of Larry C. Johnson

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722113326-59442.pdf

Statement of W. Patrick Lang

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722171657-61418.pdf

Witness Biographies

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722171832-99377.pdf

Fact Sheet: Administration Security Breaches Involving Valerie Plame Wilson

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722111008-83368.pdf

Fact Sheet: Karl Rove’s Nondisclosure Agreement

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722112741-08280.pdf

Hearing Transcript

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722145835-13707.pdf

Congressman Conyers - Last Throes of Credibility: Five Years of Lies and Deception

http://politerra.com/images/Iraqchronologyrawstory.pdf

Committee on Government Reform Minority Office
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=898&Issue=Disclosure+of+CIA+Agent+Identity

I created a separate thread listing all these references for those who might not scroll through the comments in this post. Here's that link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4170075&mesg_id=4170075


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[hiley]

48. Thank you for those links!

So informative as always UL.
Hiley

[immoderate]

13. Kick

:kick:

--IMM

[Generator]

15. Conyers does it again!

[thecrow]

17. C-span just put up a link to the hearings

Just paste this into your RealPlayer after opening the "File" button,
it gives a place to "Play" and paste this into there.
Otherwise... just go to C-span and hit the link.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm?mode=compact

[understandinglife]

19. Congressman Conyer's: "Last Throes of Credibility" time-line

Last Throes of Credibility: Five Years of Lies and Deception

Dec. 1, 1998 In an article under the cover “Saddam Must Go: A How-To Guide,” deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wrote, “We will have to confront him sooner or later -- and sooner would be better.”

<clip>

July 20, 2005 Currently, 131 Members of Congress have signed the letter to the President regarding answers to the Downing Street Minutes. demanding answers to important questions that were raised in light of the Downing Street minutes.

Letter and signatories available at:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/chairdowningltr63005.pdf

July 23, 2005 On the third anniversary of the Downing Street Minutes, Congressman Conyers along with other 9 members of Congress hold nationwide townhall meetings on the Minutes and Rovegate.

The entire 36 page timeline has been posted for Congressman Conyers by Raw Story:
http://politerra.com/images/Iraqchronologyrawstory.pdf

A small group of neconster fanatics conspired and implemented a series of massive crimes against our Constitution, other Nations and humanity.

We must stop them, now.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

38. TWN: Bolton, Miller and ?? Plame

Congressman Conyers may be needing to update that already extensive time-line.....

SCOOP: John Bolton Was Regular Source for Judith Miller WMD and National Security Reporting

TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports.

The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise.

It's all "thickening."

-- Steve Clemons

Link to comments:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000798.html

And, link to JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIED BEFORE GRAND JURY IN VALERIE PLAME INVESTIGATION:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000797.html

Georgie boy spend as much time with mommy as you can because visiting hours are limited at the jail house.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[mod mom]

20. Gotta love that man! Wish those in government had half the integrity of

Conyers! He is truly the Patron Saint of Justice!

[understandinglife]

21. Yahoo: Daivd Corn - CIA Vet's Harsh Retort to Rove's Spinners

Vote it up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050722/cm_thenation/37948/nc:742

Today, the Senate Democratic Policy Council and the Democratic side of the House Government Reform Committee held an unofficial hearing in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, in which former intelligence professionals discussed the Plame/CIA leak, especially its impact on the intelligence community, current officers, and Valerie Wilson. (The Democrats had no choice but to hold such a session because the Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to examine or investigate the leak.) The testimony was not expected to contain many surprises. And the media presence at the hearing was not heavy. But as I watched the proceedings on C-SPAN 3 and saw James Marcinkowski, a former CIA case office and a former prosecutor, testify, I realized his statement was perhaps the most powerful rebuttal of and rebuke to the rightwingers who have been pushing disinformation about the Valerie Wilson case.

I wish they all could have been tied to a chair and forced to listen to him. (Ken Mehlman, Tucker Eskew, Clifford May, William Safire--this means you.)

Referring to those who have derided Valerie Wilson and belittled the seriousness of this leak, an angry Marcinkowski said, "Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people....Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security."

For the spinners engaged in "partisan obfuscation," he has this message: "a true patriot would shut up." As a public service, I am posting below the bulk of his testimony.

Much more at the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050722/cm_thenation/37948/nc:742

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

23. Testimony of James Marcinkowski

Testimony of James Marcinkowski

July 22, 2005

What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people.

Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan "dust-up" between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right.

For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers--spies, that use "cover."

To operate under "cover" means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing "street buys" uses a "light" cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellow FBI agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.

While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer's informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well.

The exposure of Valerie Plame's cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.

Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.

So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department's undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire.

And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame's cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable.

And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.

I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because "promises of protection" will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.

Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States.

Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050722/cm_thenation/37948/nc:742

Bush, in harboring the traitors, has compounded the damage. Most likely explanation of his being willing to do all the damage he has done since July 14, 2003, is that he was a participant in the treasonous act of outing "Valerie P."

Get the guy under oath and start asking questions, my fellow Americans. He works for US.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

32. The IIPA & Why Karl Rove and Others Legitimately Face Prosecution Under It

David G. Mills has been a licensed attorney for 27 years. He is licensed in Texas and Tennessee and currently practices in Memphis, Tennessee. This article may be reproduced provided it is not changed. The author encourages its dissemination.

In keeping with Mr Mills wishes, I am posting the full text and I am linking it to Mr Marcinkowski's testimony as I think the factual information provided by Mr Marcinkowski and Mr Larry Johnson provide substantial relevant context.

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

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.

Factual Background of the National Scandal

This national scandal begins with President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union Address, in which the President stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The implication of the now infamous “sixteen words” was that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire nuclear capability and that he posed an eminent threat to the United States. In March 2003, the United States initiated military action against Iraq. No Weapons of Mass Destruction were ever found. No evidence of any attempt by Saddam Hussein to reconstitute a nuclear program has ever been found.

But shortly after the initiation of the US’s military action, when it began to look like no WMDs would be found, Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, authored an op-ed essay in The New York Times in which he accused the Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" in order to justify war. The bulk of Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed dealt with a trip he made to Niger in February of 2002. In this op-ed, Wilson stated that he had been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy enriched uranium. Wilson had concluded at the end of his investigation that rumors and documents suggesting that Hussein was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger were false and that he had reported his findings to the CIA.

It was Wilson’s contention that the sixteen words in the State of the Union address should have never been used in the State of the Union Address. Within days of the op-ed, the administration and the CIA conceded that these sixteen words should not have made it into the State of the Union Address. Also within days of the op-ed, it appears that a memo was circulating among the administration’s staff about Wilson and his family and which contained information that his wife, Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. It now has been revealed that days after the publication of Wilson’s op-ed, Karl Rove, and one or more other administration officials, spoke to as many as six reporters about Wilson and to some of them at least, it was revealed that Wilson’s wife was an agent for the CIA. At the time, Karl Rove was the president’s senior political advisor and chief political strategist.

Soon thereafter, in a syndicated article published on July 14, 2003, Robert Novak discussed Ambassador Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger. In it, Novak stated: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger.”

Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, had been “outed”.

A federal investigation ensued after a complaint by the CIA, a special prosecutor was assigned to the case, testimony has been presented to the grand jury, and after a long protracted legal battle, a reporter, Judith Miller has been jailed for contempt, apparently for refusing to reveal the source or sources of her information.

If there are indictments presented to the grand jury, will the IIPA be one of the laws alleged to have been violated? Should it be? The legal analysis follows.

1. Does Valerie Plame Meet the Requirements of a Covert Agent?

The first question to be answered under the IIPA is simple: Was Valerie Plame a covert agent as the statute defines that term?

Larry Johnson, a CIA agent, and CIA classmate of Plame, from the very beginning of this scandal has been a persistent defender of his colleague Valerie Plame. He has always maintained that she was a covert agent. Johnson has recently once again come to Plame's defense and you may find his most recent defense of Plame here.

For purposes of the IIPA, here are the pertinent parts of Johnson’s article that are of major significance in proving Plame's status as a covert agent:

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.... The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P.J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey.... For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publicly identified a CIA NOC.... She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major.

The pertinent part of the IIPA, defining what constitutes a covert agent states:

(4) The term "covert agent" means --
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with 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....

The IIPA detractors have always claimed that the prosecution would not be able to prove that she was a covert agent. As Johnson suggests, many detractors claim she was just a “desk jockey.” It is clear that she was not, having been the military equivalent of an Army major.

The detractors also claim that the prosecution will have to prove that she had a long-standing assignment outside the US during the five-year period prior to her “outing.” However, there is nothing in the statute to suggest that her service needs to be for an extended period of time as some detractors have suggested. After all, if a soldier were killed five minutes after landing on foreign soil, wouldn’t everyone consider that soldier to have “served” outside the US?

Until Johnson’s article, there was still some reason to believe she might not have been outside the United States at all during the five years prior to her “outing.” It has always seemed logical that the CIA could prove Plame had been outside the US within the past five years but there was nothing firm to indicate that fact. But if Johnson is correct when he says that Plame had the equivalent status of an Army major, it seems almost certain that she would have been sent outside the US on not just one but on many occasions in the 5 years prior to her “outing.” Thus, Plame would meet the "outside the United States" requirement of the statute.

Moreover, the CIA initially filed the complaint to the Justice Department. It is very doubtful that their legal counsel would have missed this requirement before making a complaint.

On this first element, it is highly unlikely that Plame’s status will not meet the IIPA’s covert requirement.

2. Did Rove and/or Others Intentionally Disclose Plame’s Identity?

Within the main body of the IIPA, three different crimes are enumerated, with three different levels of punishment: ten years, five years, and three years.

Generally speaking, the greater the authorization a person has to acquire or to know the identity of a covert agent, the greater the punishment he faces if he illegally discloses the identity of the covert agent.

But under every provision, the first element of the provision is that the “leaker” has to disclose the "identity" of the covert agent.

The detractors of the IIPA claim, and Rove advocates claim, that Rove and/or others never “leaked” her name. They claim that she was referred to as “Wilson’s wife.” The “I didn't identify her by name” defense has been thoroughly discussed on the internet and to some extent in the mainstream media. It should suffice to say: the statute uses the word “identity” and not the word “name”. People are identified in lineups, as the person being seated at counsel's table, as the person living at a certain address, as a relative (as is the case here) or friend of someone, etc. All that is necessary is that the person be identified with particularity. Once Plame was identified as “Wilson’s wife,” she was clearly identified.

The statute also requires that the identity be disclosed “intentionally.” “Intentionally” is synonymous with “willfully.” It is not believed Rove and the others disclosed Plame’s identity in anything other than a willful manner. Rove and the others were not under any legal duress when they disclosed her identity. Political duress is not legal duress.

On element two, the disclosure of the identity requirement has been met.

3. Did Rove and/or Others Identify Plame “Knowing” that She Was Covert and That the US Was Attempting to Keep Her Intelligence Relationship Secret?

The “leaker” must also identify the agent “knowing” that the agent was covert and that the US was trying to keep the agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States secret. To be sure, the element of “knowledge”, is more complex and more difficult to prove, and no doubt, it is this element that provides the detractors of the IIPA with their best arguments. But on analysis, the proof required of this element is not nearly as difficult as it seems. Nowhere in the federal criminal statutes is the term “knowledge”, or its derivatives “knowing” and “knowingly”, defined. We must look to case law for the definition of this legal concept.

Usually, knowledge means actual knowledge, but not always. Sometimes one can be “willfully blind” as to what one is required to “know”. When that happens, the courts hold that being “willfully blind” is the equivalent of actual knowledge. In US v. Ladish Malting Co., the 7th Circuit had this to say about the proof of the knowledge element of a federal crime:

Courts often say that knowledge may be proved by demonstrating that the defendant was conscious of a substantial chance that some fact but averted his eyes for fear of learning more. See United States v. Ramsey, 785 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990), rehearing denied, 928 F.2d 225 (1991). “An ostrich instruction informs the jury that actual knowledge and deliberate avoidance of knowledge are the same thing. When someone knows enough to put him on inquiry, he knows much. If a person with a lurking suspicion goes on as before and avoids further knowledge, this may support an inference that he has deduced the truth and is simply trying to avoid giving the appearance (and incurring the consequences) of knowledge.” Ramsey, 785 F.2d at 189. Behaving like an ostrich supports an inference of actual knowledge....

The key language here is that: “actual knowledge and deliberate avoidance of knowledge are the same thing.”

The court gives the jury an “ostrich instruction” in a case where the evidence suggests that the defendant has been sticking his head in the sand and has acted in a manner that suggests he is “willfully blind” to something he has the obligation to know. You can find an excellent article on the “ostrich instruction” here on page 6 (http://www.federaldefenders.org/2004-April%20Vol%20II%20Issue%209.pdf).

This article is from a newsletter of the National Association of Public Defenders. It is a technical primer to federal criminal defense attorneys on how best to argue to the Court that an ostrich instruction should not be submitted to the jury. It is interesting to note that the writer of the article concludes that overcoming the ostrich instruction is an “uphill battle” and that such instructions are likely not to be reversible. Moreover, it appears that giving a clear instruction to the jury that they are not to decide the case on negligence grounds (lessening the burden of proof) but instead on “willful blindness” makes the likelihood of reversible error even more remote.

Is there enough evidence that Rove and others were “willfully blind”? Was Rove “conscious of a substantial fact” which would indicate to him that he should not disclose Plame’s identity? Was he guilty of deliberately avoiding things he had an obligation to know?

To begin with, we are talking about an agent of the CIA. Just the initials, “CIA”, immediately bring images to mind to most of us of matters of covertness, clandestine activity, secrecy, and confidential and highly classified information. One would have to be pretty blind to one’s duty of confidentiality just to ignore any mention of the CIA.

But there are a couple of other things that indicate Rove was being consciously blind.

Recently Matthew Cooper of Time magazine wrote an article about his very recent testimony before the Grand Jury. One thing he said was of particular interest on the issue of willful blindness: “I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, ‘I've already said too much.’”

This statement is highly indicative that Rove knew he was disclosing something he was not supposed to be disclosing and that if he didn’t know the details of Plame’s covert status and the US’s desire to keep her status secret, he clearly had a suspicion of it.

Moreover, recently Representative Waxman has written an article about Rove’s disclosure agreement.

It is clear that the disclosure agreement Rove signed did not allow him to even confirm any confidential information. It further states that he has “been advised that the unauthorized disclosure … of confidential information … could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”

Do we have sufficient evidence that Rove was “willfully blind” to his obligation to determine whether Plame was covert before he confirmed anything about her? Yes. Do we have sufficient evidence that Rove was “willfully blind” to his obligation to determine whether the US was seeking to keep her identity secret? Yes.

My conclusion to the third element: Rove and others had the requisite knowledge the statute says they must have to commit a crime.

4. Did Rove and Others Have Authorized Access to the Confidential Identity of Plame?

Under the main body of the statute, the first and second provisions require, as an element of both provisions, that the “leaker” have “authorized access” to the confidential identity of the agent. Under the first provision, the “leaker” must be a person with specific access to the confidential identity of the agent. Under the second provision, the “leaker” must have general access to confidential information and through general access learn of the agent’s identity. The first carries a penalty of ten years; the second five.

Many pundits have assumed that this access means the person must be a governmental employee. No such governmental employee status is required, although, as a practical matter, most people who have access to confidential information are governmental employees. But clearly, a governmental contractor with confidential clearance would have access as well.

Note also that the statute uses the term “access” and not the term “possession”. The “leaker” doesn’t have to have confidential material in his hot little hands; he just has to have “access” to it. With the security clearances of the White House staff, it would seem quite logical that they possess the specific access of the first provision and not some lower level of general access.

Under the third provision of the statute, authorized access is not even required as an element. All that is required is that one be part of a “pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents.” Violation of the third provision carries with it a penalty of three years. Thus, this provision is clearly a problem for non-governmental employees, hence perhaps the reluctance of reporters and the media to be keen on the IIPA.

On element four -- Rove and others had the authorized access the statute requires and being part of a “pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents” could even pose problems for the reporters involved if they knew she was undercover.

Summary

In summary, legal scholars, pundits and media alike should rethink their analyses of the IIPA. It certainly seems that the prosecution can legitimately seek indictments under the IIPA that previously have been represented as having been unlikely.

Link to the article at Dissident Voice:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Mills0722.htm

Compelling.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[IndyOp]

49. UL - This is good! I suggest you post it in its own thread -

Miller's analysis seems solid - I suggest that if you scrolled past it back up and read the post above.

[understandinglife]

55. As you requested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4172648&mesg_id=4172648

Thank you for the suggestion.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[fooj]

22. My heart feels like it is bursting with hope today!

Thanks for this, UL. Thanks for all that you do.

Peace.:patriot:

[understandinglife]

24. O'Donnell: "When the prosecutor has his day, he is going to make new news"

<clip>

It is important for Luskin to get his defense started now because he knows that what one appeals court judge in the case called "the plot against Wilson" is going to become public when the prosecutor reveals everything he has already revealed only to the judges.

Rove is obviously in charge of the day-to-day strategy of what Luskin leaks to the press. Rove is stealing a page from the Clinton scandal management playbook. He is trying to set the stage for the day the prosecutor turns over his cards. Rove-Luskin will then call it all "old news."

Everything Rove-Luskin has leaked has been printed in a form most favorable to the Rove defense without a word of leaked input from the prosecutor. When the prosecutor tells his story, don't expect him to accept Rove's currently uncontested claim that he does not recall who told him that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and don't expect the "old news" spin to work. When the prosecutor has his day, he is going to make new news.

From The Rove-Luskin Leaks by Lawrence O'Donnell on July 22, 2005

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/the-roveluskin-leaks_4551.html

And, after today's testimony, we can imagine just how damning the information is that Mr Fitzgerald has uncovered.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Twist_U_Up]

25. How the hell did they get a room ?????

The pigs have never let Conyers hold hearings in the State House. WTF

must be Sensenbrenner was told to leave this one alone..... bwahahaa

[realFedUp]

27. Through priceline.com

No Howard Johnson's today for the Dem hearings.

[IndyOp]

46. Conyers commented - with just the right amount of

sarcasm that they got a room that wasn't in the basement.

I'd try to give you a more direct link, but I can't get the page to show up. I hope it's overloaded with readers...

<http://www.conyersblog.us/>

[Independent_Liberal]

34. Gotta keep this sucker kicked!

Look out! The big impeachment monster is coming!

:D

[oasis]

36. Col. Lang is on the panel. He was a military analyst on cable t.v.

This Rove harming national security thing is going to be huge.

[understandinglife]

39. And, Bush and Cheney's harming national security will be even bigger.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Gold Metal Flake]

37. "Fate makes no such deals"

Be the Fate, DU motherfuckers!

[oasis]

41. "I expect better behavior from Republicans" said Ex-CIA Larry Johnson

He ripped Sen. John McCain for being an apologist for Rove when he appeared on "Hardball" last night.

[MelissaB]

43. Beautifully done! Thanks for ALL of the information.

:kick:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Karla Rove?

:think:

[hootinholler]

50. SNARF!

:rofl:

[Samantha]

51. I am watching those hearings replayed now on CSPAN (9:09 pm)

My question: could that CIA damage report constitute the redacted 8 pages of the court's decision which reportedly revolve around a national security breach?

[understandinglife]

53. What do all of their lies cause? Here's but one answer.

A security guard's daughter screamed after her father, Jalil Shaalan, was shot by gunmen outside a Baghdad school compound yesterday. (Photo: Hadi Mizban / AP)

Yeap, Georgie boy; yeap, Dick, ..... this would not have happened if it weren't for all your lies. Just as all those American soldiers would now still be alive and unharmed, rather than buried or disabled for life.

Context, you murdering, lying, torturing neoconster bastards.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[loudsue]

54. Wow! This is one helluva thread! Lots of good information!

I just hope every single American can now see the bush cabal for what it really is. I wish the news media...a miracle would happen... and the news media would tell the whole story...showing ALL the videos of the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "redacted" pictures of Abu Gharib that the UCLA is trying to get hold of, the DSM, and talk it out until everyone in America realizes how this all ties together.

O8) Oh Let There Be A God!!! O8)

:kick::kick::kick:

[rumpel]

56. Remember also, Conyers is one of the first to receive the Fitz report.

Which gives me great peace of mind.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

57. CNN Rebroadcast it Friday night

I turned on TV around 9 PM and caught it in progress. Well worth watching!

[savannahana]

58. nominated. thank you.

:kick: