""Watergate-level event" is about to occur in

by **Peachtree Pam** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:20 pm

Anti, Here is more from Needlenose" on Kelly-Millar, on the angle that it was Millar furnishing the leak to Libby, Robe and Cheney, not the other way around, even tho all three men would be "using" her to give them the technical excuse that they were not the "source" of the leak. What do you think? <a href="http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1592">www.needlenose.com/node/view/1592</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:23 pm

She definitely was a woman on a mission, and the mission wasn't reporting the truth. I wonder how much of this administration's current troubles are the result not only of hubris, but also on over-confidence resulting from the fact that the elder Bush got by with murder during Iran/contra.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:31 pm

Pam, Only got a minute. This again is why CS is so important. The media have been steering us towards the IIPA. Under that statute Miller might well have given the conspirators cover. But it doesn't matter under the Espionage Act. Whomsoever is the source, the crime lies in passing the information on to someone who is not entitled to receive it. And Robert Novak (and his readers) is not entitled to receive it. Added on edit. Pam, Your linked piece at Needlenose is very likely correct. It fits so well with the modus operandi of the Anglo-American racketeers. They launder money through London and elsewhere. They launder politicians (Archer, also through London) They launder intelligence ("The British Government has learned...") So why not launder lethal leaks? Something else that fits this mo is the story of Comey's appointment of Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. <a href="http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1791">www.needlenose.com/node/view/1791</a> It seems they left a loophole and relied on JA to shepherd them through it. And that JA was doing just that when the rank and file rebelled. There's a message there for London's Metropolitan Police. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 10/15/05 12:51 pm

by **Peachtree Pam** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:10 pm

Anti, this is from today's Washington Post. Tomorrow, pay attention, the NY Times will publish at last their take On Plamegate and Judith, who had refused to cooperate with the NYT reporters, but may have relented. This will be in the NYT tomorrow. I will not get it until Monday, but will then try to summarise. The WaPo: Rove Pressed On Conflicts, Source Says Questions Said to Focus On Differing Accounts By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, October 15, 2005; A01 The grand jury investigating the CIA leak case pressed White House senior adviser Karl Rove yesterday to more fully explain his conversations with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame, including discrepancies between his testimony and the account provided by a key witness in the investigation, according to a source familiar with Rove's account. Making his fourth appearance before the grand jury, Rove answered a broad range of questions for 4 1/2 hours, including why he did not initially tell federal agents about a July 2003 conversation about Plame with the witness, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, the source said. Rove's defense team asserts that President Bush's deputy chief of staff has not committed a crime but nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said. "The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said in a statement. Fitzgerald is believed to be in the final days of a 22-month investigation into whether any administration officials knowingly identified Plame to the media to retaliate against her husband, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. White House officials are bracing for the possibility that Rove; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff; or other officials could be indicted. But it remains a mystery who -- if anyone -- will be charged in the case. The grand jury expires Oct. 28. One person who will not be charged is Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify in the case before making two recent appearances before the grand jury. Miller was recently told by Fitzgerald that she is only a witness in the case, according to a source close to Miller. "Judy has always been a witness in this case and nothing more," said Robert S. Bennett, Miller's attorney. "She is neither a subject nor a target of the investigation." A team of Times reporters is preparing a report on Miller's role in the saga that could be published as early as tomorrow. Until a contempt-of-court citation against her was lifted, Miller refused to tell her story to the paper on the advice of her lawyers. But Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said yesterday that Miller is now cooperating with fellow reporters on the story. Rove, the mastermind of Bush's political career, who is considered the leading architect of White House political and policy plans, has emerged as a central figure in the investigation. In addition to his four trips to the grand jury, he spoke with investigators several times early in the probe. His story has changed from the earliest days, when he told reporters he had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's name. Since then, Rove has testified that he discussed Plame in passing with two reporters, including Robert D. Novak, whose July 14, 2003, syndicated column first publicly identified Plame as a CIA operative married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. On July 6, 2003, Wilson said publicly that he had found no evidence for the administration's claim that Iraq was seeking uranium for use in a nuclear weapons program. Wilson had been sent to the African nation of Niger by the CIA to investigate that claim. But Rove has maintained that he did not name Plame or disclose her covert status, and it is not clear whether his remarks amount to a crime. The source close to Rove would not provide details of yesterday's exchange, other than to say the grand jury was very interested in discrepancies in testimony. Rove initially did not tell federal agents about his conversations with Cooper. In an earlier grand jury appearance, he testified that the purpose of their conversation was welfare reform, not Wilson or Plame. But Cooper testified that he did not recall discussing welfare reform at all. He said he had detailed notes on their discussion about Wilson and Rove's passing reference to Wilson's wife. There is also a mystery about a once-missing e-mail. The e-mail -- from Rove to a White House colleague -- shows Rove discussing his conversation with Cooper and saying he waved the reporter off Wilson's allegations. It did not surface until earlier this year, well after the investigation was in full swing. Luskin said Rove is finished testifying in the case, which would seem to suggest the end of the case is near, lawyers involved in it said. Because Fitzgerald mandated secrecy in the case, the role of other administration officials remains unknown to all but the special prosecutor's staff. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, has not returned reporters' phone calls for several days. Neither has Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman who testified early in the case and was present on a July 2003 Air Force One flight on which a memo that included information about Plame was circulated. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who in 2003 denied any White House involvement in the leak, has refused comment for several months. Libby, who, like Rove, has testified to discussing Plame without using her name or disclosing her CIA status, also appears to be another main focus of the probe. Wilson's campaign caught the attention of Vice President Cheney's office nearly two months before Plame was unmasked, according to senior administration officials. Cheney's aides pressed the CIA for information about Wilson. By early June -- one month before Plame was identified in Novak's column -- the State Department had prepared a memo on Wilson's trip that contained a small section about Plame marked "S" for secret. A few days before Novak's column was published, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell brought the memo with him on a trip to Africa with Bush and many of his top aides. Some lawyers in the case think Fitzgerald may no longer be interested in proving whether Plame's name was illegally leaked to reporters. That would require the difficult task of showing that an official knew the material was classified, that the official knew that the CIA was actively working to keep it a secret and that the person purposely leaked the information. Instead, the lawyers, who based their opinions on the kinds of questions Fitzgerald is asking and not on firsthand knowledge, think the special prosecutor may be headed in a different direction. They said Fitzgerald could be trying to establish that a group of White House officials violated the Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of classified material, or that they engaged in a conspiracy to discredit Wilson in part by identifying Plame. Another possibility, the lawyers say, is that Fitzgerald could charge Rove or others with perjury or providing false testimony before the grand jury. This is a popular avenue for prosecutors in white-collar criminal cases. While other aides describe a nervous and unsettled White House, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said that the president's advisers are going about their business and trying to ignore the controversy. "Well, obviously we're all human beings and we know that there are external activities that impact the environment you're working in . . .," Card said in the transcript of an interview with C-SPAN that will air tomorrow. "It is something that is there, but it is something that we don't talk about because it would be inappropriate. . . . I haven't found anyone that is distracted because of the ongoing investigation, but we all know that it's taking place and we're all working to cooperate with the investigators."

by **Peachtree Pam** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:51 pm

Here is the take as of the end of the day today: Saturday, October 15, 2005 The Last Pieces? Karl Rove spent 4 1/2 hours before the Special Grand Jury yesterday, answering questions from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the men and women of the jury regarding discrepencies in his testimony in three prior grand jury appearances and from prior discussions with the FBI during the investigation of this matter. In my mind, 4 1/2 hours is an awfully long time to be talking just about differences between Rove's testimony and Matt Cooper's, so what else did Karl spill -- or not -- while on the stand? The clues to this testimony are in the always cryptic remarks of sources familiar with Rove's testimony, i.e. from Rove himself or from someone on his legal defense team, which is the most likely source in my mind. From the WaPo: The grand jury investigating the CIA leak case pressed White House senior adviser Karl Rove yesterday to more fully explain his conversations with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame, including discrepancies between his testimony and the account provided by a key witness in the investigation, according to a source familiar with Rove's account. Making his fourth appearance before the grand jury, Rove answered a broad range of questions for 4 1/2 hours, including why he did not initially tell federal agents about a July 2003 conversation about Plame with the witness, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, the source said. Note that this is conversation(S) and reporter(S) (as in multiple, and we know about Cooper and Novak, but does this include also Chris Matthews and the famous "Wilson's wife is fair game."? Does this include Tim Russert from Meet the Press? Does this also include Judy Miller -- and is that why her second day of testimony was vital, or was that all about Libby and nothing else? Or Walter Pincus? Or....well, we know a lot of the other players, but at this juncture most of them aren't reporting about what they, the reporters, know, so we have to guess. How about some reporting on this, instead, huh? (looking forward to the Judypalooza article, as I'm sure everyone else is.) The "source" went on to say that the grand jury itself was very interested in discrepencies in testimony. And regarding the "missing e-mail" and how it "refreshed" Rove's recollection of his talk with Cooper -- conveniently in my mind right before Rove had to testify again in this matter. (ooooh, what I wouldn't give to know whether Fitz or Rove found that e-mail or information about it first.) While Rove's defense team continues using the "no crime committed here, no, uh uh, no intent to be mean at all" defense, the next paragraph in the WaPo article struck me. Either the reporter caught the source in a serious moment of weakness (and perhaps one brewski too many) or they are already trying the pre-indictment spin out to see if it flies. ...nevertheless anticipates that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald could find a way to bring charges in the next two weeks, the source said. The "source" (cough...Luskin...cough) is clearly floating the "creative charges" theory that Toensing has been muttering all over the known universe over the last week. Wow, who knew a statute that has been on the books since 1917 could be a creative charge? I mean, I thought the Espionage Act and the requirements of the SF 312 for security clearance were pretty clear and straightforward and on the books for ages. Ahem. Clearly Carol Leonnig and Jim VandeHei of the WaPo are thinking that something bigger than just an after-investigation report is coming down the pike. They've named Libby and Rove outright as potential indictments and added the "other administration officials" possibility as a kicker. Rove didn't go back to the White House after testimony -- maybe he needed a shower. Or maybe he went up to Camp David to meet with the Preznit, deciding to drive his Jag instead of taking the 'copter. A bit of interesting news buried in the middle of the WaPo report is that La Vida Judy has apparently been told that she will not be charged in this matter, but will only be a witness, at least according to her attorney, Bob Bennett. Dunno, sounds an awful lot like someone cut a deal to me to tell everything she knew. Judging by the company she keeps, that could be an awful lot of hot potatoes. This could be awfully interesting in the next few days. Also in the WaPo, a tick tock piece on how the reporters dealt with the length of their stay on "Monica Beach" while awaiting Rove's departure from testimony. We learn a couple of things here: (1) When Fitz has had coffee, his bladder will go about 3 hours before needing relief. (Um, thanks, Dana. Proof that Fitz is a human being. Useful.) and (2) Reporters are as antsy as the rest of us waiting for some news on this case. It is interesting to note that the jurors were described as average people in jeans, sweaters and such, with 11 of them being African American and 4 white that were seen exiting the building around the same time. I should note that this doesn't mean that this was the full grand jury, since at times exits can be delayed by bathroom breaks or someone having left early or something. But it was an interesting detail nonetheless, since we know next to nothing about them other than what Matt Cooper already reported. The NYTimes also has a piece out on this. They indicate that lawyers in the case are also playing wait and see, and seem to be using the "cross your fingers and hope for the best" method of protecting their clients because Fitz and crew aren't talking. I'd bet that they are also trying to cut deals, but no one wants to say that publicly, given the folks their clients would have to rat out. The article oddly indicates that the focus has shifted from Libby to Rove, but gives no supporting facts to indicate why other than the fact that it was Rove, and not Libby, testifying. Hmmmmm, curious, and I hope there will be a revelation on this in the Sunday Judy piece extravaganza. Sure seems like some more pieces may have been put into the puzzle, but who knows where they fit in all this mess. And we wait... <a href="http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/">firedoglake.blogspot.com/</a>

by **sunny** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:14 pm

This may seem perverse, but I'm worried because nobody is attacking Fitz. Is is because they know nothing and are keeping their powder dry in case no indictments come down, or do they know that indictments are not in the cards?

by **dbeach** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:21 pm

indictments are coming and then the Fitz is godzilla attacks will be rapid..I did hear it did start..

by **Peachtree Pam** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:51 am

Anti, I posted this under wrong thread -- posted under de Menezes thread. The NYT article on Judith Miller: October 16, 2005 The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame." Ms. Miller should have written Valerie Plame. That name is at the core of a federal grand jury investigation that has reached deep into the White House. At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq. Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source, then relented. On Sept. 30, she told the grand jury that her source was I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But she said he did not reveal Ms. Plame's name. And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today. Whether Ms. Miller's testimony will prove valuable to the prosecution remains unclear, as do its ramifications for press freedom. Yet an examination of Ms. Miller's decision not to testify, and then to do so, offers fresh information about her role in the investigation and how The New York Times turned her case into a cause. The grand jury investigation centers on whether administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, whose husband, a former diplomat named Joseph C. Wilson IV, became a public critic of the Iraq war in July 2003. But Ms. Miller said Mr. Libby first raised questions about the diplomat in an interview with her that June, an account suggesting that Mr. Wilson was on the White House's radar before he went public with his criticisms. Once Ms. Miller was issued a subpoena in August 2004 to testify about her conversations with Mr. Libby, she and The Times vowed to fight it. Behind the scenes, however, her lawyer made inquiries to see if Mr. Libby would release her from their confidentiality agreement. Ms. Miller said she decided not to testify in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client. The lawyer denies that, and Mr. Libby did not respond to requests for an interview. As Ms. Miller, 57, remained resolute and moved closer to going to jail for her silence, the leadership of The Times stood squarely behind her. "She'd given her pledge of confidentiality," said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher. "She was prepared to honor that. We were going to support her." But Mr. Sulzberger and the paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Ms. Miller's conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Ms. Miller's notes. Mr. Keller said he learned about the "Valerie Flame" notation only this month. Mr. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday. Interviews show that the paper's leaders, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control. "This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk," Mr. Sulzberger said. Once Ms. Miller was jailed, her lawyers were in open conflict about whether she should stay there. She had refused to reopen communications with Mr. Libby for a year, saying she did not want to pressure a source into waiving confidentiality. But in the end, saying "I owed it to myself" after two months of jail, she had her lawyer reach out to Mr. Libby. This time, hearing directly from her source, she accepted his permission and was set free. "We have everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for," Ms. Miller said in an interview Friday. Neither The Times nor its cause has emerged unbruised. Three courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to back Ms. Miller. Critics said The Times was protecting not a whistle-blower but an administration campaign intended to squelch dissent. The Times's coverage of itself was under assault: While the editorial page had crusaded on Ms. Miller's behalf, the news department had more than once been scooped on the paper's own story, even including the news of Ms. Miller's release from jail. Asked what she regretted about The Times's handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing." A Divisive Newsroom Figure In the spring of 2003, Ms. Miller returned from covering the war in Iraq, where she had been embedded with an American military team searching unsuccessfully for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Back in the States, another battle was brewing. Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war - often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors - strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction. When no evidence of them was found, her reporting, along with that of some other journalists, came under fire. She was accused of writing articles that helped the Bush administration make its case for war. "I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage," said Roger Cohen, who was the foreign editor at the time. "There was concern that she'd been convinced in an unwarranted way, a way that was not holding up, of the possible existence of W.M.D." It was a blow to the reputation of Ms. Miller, an investigative reporter who has worked at The Times for three decades. Ms. Miller is known for her expertise in intelligence and security issues and her ability to cultivate relationships with influential sources in government. In 2002, she was part of a team of Times reporters that won a Pulitzer Prize for articles on Al Qaeda. Inside the newsroom, she was a divisive figure. A few colleagues refused to work with her. "Judy is a very intelligent, very pushy reporter," said Stephen Engelberg, who was Ms. Miller's editor at The Times for six years and is now a managing editor at The Oregonian in Portland. "Like a lot of investigative reporters, Judy benefits from having an editor who's very interested and involved with what she's doing." In the year after Mr. Engelberg left the paper in 2002, though, Ms. Miller operated with a degree of autonomy rare at The Times. Douglas Frantz, who succeeded Mr. Engelberg as the investigative editor, said that Ms. Miller once called herself "Miss Run Amok." "I said, 'What does that mean?' " said Mr. Frantz, who was recently appointed managing editor at The Los Angeles Times. "And she said, 'I can do whatever I want.' " Ms. Miller said she remembered the remark only vaguely but must have meant it as a joke, adding, "I have strong elbows, but I'm not a dope." Ms. Miller said she was proud of her journalism career, including her work on Al Qaeda, biological warfare and Islamic militancy. But she acknowledged serious flaws in her articles on Iraqi weapons. "W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," she said. "The analysts, the experts and the journalists who covered them - we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong. I did the best job that I could." In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes. On July 30, 2003, Mr. Keller became executive editor after his predecessor, Howell Raines, was dismissed after a fabrication scandal involving a young reporter named Jayson Blair. Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." Although criticism of Ms. Miller's Iraq coverage mounted, Mr. Keller waited until May 26, 2004, to publish an editors' note that criticized some of the paper's coverage of the run-up to the war. The note said the paper's articles on unconventional weapons were credulous. It did not name any reporters and said the failures were institutional. Five of the six articles called into question were written or co-written by Ms. Miller. 'A Good-Faith Source' On June 23, 2003, Ms. Miller visited Mr. Libby at the Old Executive Office Building in Washington. Mr. Libby was the vice president's top aide and had played an important role in shaping the argument for going to war in Iraq. He was "a good-faith source who was usually straight with me," Ms. Miller said in an interview. Her assignment was to write an article about the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. She said Mr. Libby wanted to talk about a diplomat's fact-finding trip in 2002 to the African nation of Niger to determine whether Iraq sought uranium there. The diplomat was Mr. Wilson, and his wife worked for the C.I.A. Mr. Wilson had already become known among Washington insiders as a fierce Bush critic. He would go public the next month, accusing the White House in an opinion article in The Times of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. But Mr. Libby was already defending Vice President Dick Cheney, saying his boss knew nothing about Mr. Wilson or his findings. Ms. Miller said her notes leave open the possibility that Mr. Libby told her Mr. Wilson's wife might work at the agency. On July 8, two days after Mr. Wilson's article appeared in The Times, the reporter and her source met again, for breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel, near the White House. The notebook Ms. Miller used that day includes the reference to "Valerie Flame." But she said the name did not appear in the same portion of her notebook as the interview notes from Mr. Libby. During the breakfast, Mr. Libby provided a detail about Ms. Wilson, saying she worked in a C.I.A. unit known as Winpac; the name stands for weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control. Ms. Miller said she understood this to mean that Ms. Wilson was an analyst rather than an undercover operative. Ms. Miller returned to the subject on July 12 in a phone call with Mr. Libby. Another variant on Valerie Wilson's name - "Victoria Wilson" - appears in the notes of that call. Ms. Miller had by then called other sources about Mr. Wilson's wife. In an interview, she would not discuss her sources. Two days later, on July 14, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, wrote that Mr. Wilson's wife had suggested sending him to Niger, citing "two administration sources." He went on to say, without attributing the information, that Mr. Wilson's wife, "Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Ms. Miller's article on the hunt for missing weapons was published on July 20, 2003. It acknowledged that the hunt could turn out to be fruitless but focused largely on the obstacles the searchers faced. Neither that article nor any in the following months by Ms. Miller discussed Mr. Wilson or his wife. It is not clear why. Ms. Miller said in an interview that she "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that an article be pursued. "I was told no," she said. She would not identify the editor. Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation. In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists," Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it. "The answer was generally no," Mr. Taubman said. Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information." Enter a Special Prosecutor The Novak column prompted a criminal investigation into whether government officials had violated a 1982 law that makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the identity of an undercover agent. At the end of December 2003, the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was appointed special prosecutor. Around the same time, F.B.I. investigators working for Mr. Fitzgerald asked officials in the White House, including Mr. Libby, to sign waivers instructing reporters that they could disregard earlier promises of confidentiality and reveal who their sources were. When Ms. Miller was subpoenaed in the investigation in August 2004, The Times immediately retained Floyd Abrams, who had often represented the paper and is a noted First Amendment lawyer. The Times said it believes that attempts by prosecutors to force reporters to reveal confidential information must be resisted. Otherwise, it argues, the public would be deprived of important information about the government and other powerful institutions. The fact that Ms. Miller's judgment had been questioned in the past did not affect its stance. "The default position in a case like that is you support the reporter," Mr. Keller said. It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby's identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with him. Both said they viewed the case as a matter of principle, which made the particulars less important. "I didn't interrogate her about the details of the interview," Mr. Keller said. "I didn't ask to see her notes. And I really didn't feel the need to do that." Still, Mr. Keller said the case was not ideal: "I wish it had been a clear-cut whistle-blower case. I wish it had been a reporter who came with less public baggage." Times lawyers warned company executives that they would have trouble persuading a judge to excuse Ms. Miller from testifying. The Supreme Court decided in 1972 that the First Amendment offers reporters no protection from grand jury subpoenas. Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr. Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion said. People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the preliminary negotiations was troubling. Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate had said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife. That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify. According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.' " Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one." In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation "outrageous." "I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate wrote. "It was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary." He added: " 'Don't go there' or 'We don't want you there' is not something I said, would say, or ever implied or suggested." Telling another witness about grand jury testimony is lawful as long as it is not an attempt to influence the other witness's testimony. "Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony," Mr. Keller said, noting that he did not know the basis for the fear. "She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony." Ms. Miller and the paper decided at that point not to pursue additional negotiations with Mr. Tate. The two sides did not talk for a year. Ms. Miller said in an interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did. "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said. She and her lawyers have also said it was inappropriate for them to hound a source for permission to testify. Mr. Tate, for his part, said the silence of the Miller side was mystifying. "You never told me," Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Abrams recently, "that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally to my client." Mr. Abrams does not dispute that. Talks between Ms. Miller's lawyer and the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, were at a dead end, too. Not long after breaking off communications with Mr. Tate, Mr. Abrams spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald twice in September 2004. Mr. Abrams wanted to narrow the scope of the questions Ms. Miller would be asked if she testified before the grand jury. Mr. Abrams said he wanted Mr. Fitzgerald to question Ms. Miller only on her conversations with Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson. And he wanted a promise that Mr. Fitzgerald would not call her back for further questioning after she testified once. Mr. Fitzgerald said no. His spokesman declined to comment for this article. With negotiations at an impasse, Ms. Miller and The Times turned to the courts but were rebuffed. In October 2004, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington held Ms. Miller in contempt for not testifying. She remained free while she pursued appeals. A few weeks later on Capitol Hill, in November 2004, Ms. Miller bumped into Robert S. Bennett, the prominent Washington criminal lawyer who represented President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and who is known for his blunt style and deal-making skills. Ms. Miller recalled Mr. Bennett saying while he signed on to her case: "I don't want to represent a principle. I want to represent Judy Miller." After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Ms. Miller made a final plea to Judge Hogan to stay out of jail: "My motive here is straightforward. A promise of confidentiality once made must be respected, or the journalist will lose all credibility and the public will, in the end, suffer." Judge Hogan ordered her jailed at Alexandria Detention Center in Northern Virginia until she agreed to testify or the grand jury's term expired on Oct. 28. "She has the keys to release herself," the judge said. "She has a waiver she chooses not to recognize." Rising Tensions at Newspaper While the paper's leaders were rallying around Ms. Miller's cause in public, inside The Times tensions were growing. Throughout this year, reporters at the paper spent weeks trying to determine the identity of Ms. Miller's source. All the while, Mr. Keller knew it, but declined to tell his own reporters. Even after reporters learned it from outside sources, The Times did not publish Mr. Libby's name, though other news organizations already had. The Times did not tell its readers that Mr. Libby was Ms. Miller's source until Sept. 30, in an article about Ms. Miller's release from jail. Mr. Keller said that before Ms. Miller went to jail, Mr. Sulzberger, the publisher, asked him to participate in meetings on legal strategy and public statements. Mr. Keller said he then turned over the supervision of the newspaper's coverage of the case to Ms. Abramson, though he said he did not entirely step aside. "It was just too awkward," Mr. Keller said, "to have me coming from meetings where they were discussing the company's public posture, then overseeing stories that were trying to deal with the company's public posture." Ms. Abramson called The Times's coverage of the case "constrained." She said that if Ms. Miller was willing to go to jail to protect her source, it would have been "unconscionable then to out her source in the pages of the paper." Mr. Keller and Ms. Abramson said this created an almost impossible tension between covering the case and the principle they believed to be at the heart of it. Some reporters said editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about other aspects of the case as well, like how it was being investigated by Mr. Fitzgerald. In July, Richard W. Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article about the role of Mr. Cheney's senior aides, including Mr. Libby, in the leak case. The article, which did not disclose that Mr. Libby was Ms. Miller's source, was not published. Mr. Stevenson said he was told by his editors that the article did not break enough new ground. "It was taken pretty clearly among us as a signal that we were cutting too close to the bone, that we were getting into an area that could complicate Judy's situation," he said. In August, Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, two other Washington reporters, sent a memo to the Washington bureau chief, Mr. Taubman, listing ideas for coverage of the case. Mr. Taubman said Mr. Keller did not want them pursued because of the risk of provoking Mr. Fitzgerald or exposing Mr. Libby while Ms. Miller was in jail. Mr. Taubman said he felt bad for his reporters, but he added that he and other senior editors felt that they had no choice. "No editor wants to be in the position of keeping information out of the newspaper," Mr. Taubman said. Both Mr. Taubman and Ms. Abramson called the situation "excruciatingly difficult." One result was that other news organizations broke developments in the case before The Times. Reporters found it especially frustrating when on the day that Ms. Miller left jail, The Times had an article prepared at 2 p.m. but delayed posting it on its Web site until after the news appeared on the Web site of The Philadelphia Inquirer. "We end up being late on our own story," Mr. Johnston said. There were other awkward moments. On Oct. 7, shortly before Ms. Miller was to conduct a telephone interview with two Times reporters, George Freeman, a Times company lawyer, sent her a four-page memorandum. Ms. Miller and her outside lawyer, Mr. Bennett, reacted furiously, calling it a "script" and nearly canceling the interview. Mr. Freeman said later that he had prepared and sent what he called a "narrative" of what happened to Ms. Miller. Mr. Freeman said it had been written long before the interview with Ms. Miller had even been contemplated. "It was not meant to be a script," Mr. Freeman said. The editorial page, which is run by Mr. Sulzberger and Gail Collins, the editorial page editor, championed Ms. Miller's cause. The Times published more than 15 editorials and called for Congress to pass a shield law that would make it harder for federal prosecutors to compel reporters to testify. Mr. Sulzberger said he did not personally write the editorials, but regularly urged Ms. Collins to devote space to them. After Ms. Miller was jailed, an editorial acknowledged that "this is far from an ideal case," before saying, "If Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places." Asked in the interview whether he had any regrets about the editorials, given the outcome of the case, Mr. Sulzberger said no. "I felt strongly that, one, Judy deserved the support of the paper in this cause - and the editorial page is the right place for such support, not the news pages," Mr. Sulzberger said. "And secondly, that this issue of a federal shield law is really important to the nation." Ms. Miller said the publisher's support was invaluable. "He galvanized the editors, the senior editorial staff," she said. "He metaphorically and literally put his arm around me." More Thoughts of a Waiver Inside her cell in the Alexandria Detention Center this summer, Ms. Miller was able to peer through a narrow concrete slit to get an obstructed view of a maple tree and a concrete highway barrier. She was losing weight and struggling to sleep on two thin mats on a concrete slab. Although she told friends that she was feeling isolated and frustrated, Ms. Miller said she comforted herself with thousands of letters, the supportive editorials in The Times and frequent 30-minute visits from more than 100 friends and colleagues. Among them were Mr. Sulzberger; Tom Brokaw, the former anchor at NBC News; Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official; and John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations. Every day, she checked outdated copies of The Times for a news article about her case. Most days she was disappointed. She said she began thinking about whether she should reach out to Mr. Libby for "a personal, voluntary waiver." "The longer I was there, the more chance I had to think about it," Ms. Miller said. On July 20, William Safire, the former longtime columnist at The Times, testified about a federal shield law on Capitol Hill. Ms. Miller read his testimony and found it "inspiring." While she mulled over her options, Mr. Bennett was urging her to allow him to approach Mr. Tate, Mr. Libby's lawyer, to try to negotiate a deal that would get her out of jail. Mr. Bennett wanted to revive the question of the waivers that Mr. Libby and other administration officials signed the previous year authorizing reporters to disclose their confidential discussions. The other reporters subpoenaed in the case said such waivers were coerced. They said administration officials signed them only because they feared retribution from the prosecutor or the White House. Reporters for at least three news organizations had then gone back to their sources and obtained additional assurances that convinced them the waivers were genuine. But Ms. Miller said she had not gotten an assurance that she felt would allow her to testify. And she said she felt that if Mr. Libby had wanted her to testify, he would have contacted her directly. While Mr. Bennett urged Ms. Miller to test the waters, some of her other lawyers were counseling caution. Mr. Freeman, The Times's company lawyer, and Mr. Abrams worried that if Ms. Miller sought and received permission to testify and was released from jail, people would say that she and the newspaper had simply caved in. "I was afraid that people would draw the wrong conclusions," Mr. Freeman said. Mr. Freeman advised Ms. Miller to remain in jail until Oct. 28, when the term of the grand jury would expire and the investigation would presumably end. Mr. Bennett thought that was a bad strategy; he argued that Mr. Fitzgerald would "almost certainly" empanel a new grand jury, which might mean Ms. Miller would have to spend an additional 18 months behind bars. Mr. Freeman said he thought Mr. Fitzgerald was bluffing. Mr. Abrams was less sure. But he said Judge Hogan might release Ms. Miller if Mr. Fitzgerald tried to take further action against her. "At that point," Ms. Miller said, "I realized if and when he did that, objectively things would change, and at that point, I might really be locked in." After much deliberation, Ms. Miller said, she finally told Mr. Bennett to call Mr. Libby's lawyer. After two months in jail, Ms. Miller said, "I owed it to myself to see whether or not Libby had had a change of heart, the special prosecutor had had a change of heart." Mr. Bennett called Mr. Tate on Aug. 31. Mr. Tate told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Libby had given permission to Ms. Miller to testify a year earlier. "I called Tate and this guy could not have been clearer - 'Bob, my client has given a waiver,' " Mr. Bennett said. Mr. Fitzgerald wrote to Mr. Tate on Sept. 12, saying he was concerned that Ms. Miller was still in jail because of a "misunderstanding" between her and Mr. Libby. Three days later, Ms. Miller heard from Mr. Libby. In a folksy, conversational two-page letter dated Sept. 15, Mr. Libby assured Ms. Miller that he had wanted her to testify about their conversations all along. "I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will benefit all," he wrote. And he noted that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me." When Ms. Miller testified before the grand jury, Mr. Fitzgerald asked her about the letter. She said she responded that it could be perceived as an effort by Mr. Libby "to suggest that I, too, would say that we had not discussed Ms. Plame's identity." But she added that "my notes suggested that we had discussed her job." Ms. Miller, though, wanted more than Mr. Libby's letter to feel free to testify. She told her lawyers that she still needed to hear from Mr. Libby in person. When that could not be arranged, she settled for a 10-minute jailhouse conference call on Sept. 19 with Mr. Libby, while two of her lawyers and one of Mr. Libby's listened in. Ms. Miller said she was persuaded. "I mean, it's like the tone of the voice," she said. "When he talked to me about how unhappy he was that I was in jail, that he hadn't fully understood that I might have been going to jail just to protect him. He had thought there were other people whom I had been protecting. And there was kind of like an expression of genuine concern and sorrow." Ms. Miller said she then "cross-examined" Mr. Libby. "When I pushed him hard, I said: 'Do you really want me to testify? Are you sure you really want me to testify?' He said something like: 'Absolutely. Believe it. I mean it.' " At 1 p.m. on Sept. 26, Ms. Miller convened her lawyers in the jailhouse law library. All the lawyers agreed that Mr. Libby had released Ms. Miller from the pledge of confidentiality. The next day, Mr. Bennett called Mr. Fitzgerald. He informed the prosecutor that Ms. Miller had a voluntary, personal waiver and asked Mr. Fitzgerald to restrict his questions to her conversations with Mr. Libby. Mr. Bennett, who by now had carefully reviewed Ms. Miller's extensive notes taken from two interviews with Mr. Libby, assured Mr. Fitzgerald that Ms. Miller had only one meaningful source. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to limit his questions to Mr. Libby and the Wilson matter. Claudia Payne, a Times editor and a close friend of Ms. Miller, said that once Ms. Miller realized that her jail term could be extended, "it changed things a great deal. She said, 'I don't want to spend my life in here.' " Ms. Payne added, "Her paramount concern was how her actions would be viewed by her colleagues." On Sept. 29, Ms. Miller was released from jail and whisked by Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller to the Ritz-Carlton Georgetown for a massage, a manicure, a martini and a steak dinner. The next morning, she testified before the grand jury for three hours. Afterward, Ms. Miller declared that her ordeal was a victory for journalists and the public. She testified before the grand jury for a second time on Wednesday about notes from her first meeting with Mr. Libby. Last week, Mr. Sulzberger said it was impossible to know whether Ms. Miller could have struck a deal a year earlier, as at least four other journalists had done. "Maybe a deal was possible earlier," Mr. Sulzberger said. "And maybe, in retrospect, looking back, you could say this was a moment you could have jumped on. If so, shame on us. I tend to think not." A Puzzling Outcome On Oct. 3, four days after Ms. Miller left jail, she returned to the headquarters of The New York Times on West 43rd Street. Before entering the building, she called her friend Ms. Payne and asked her to come downstairs and escort her in. "She very felt frightened," Ms. Payne said. "She felt very vulnerable." At a gathering in the newsroom, she made a speech claiming victories for press freedom. Her colleagues responded with restrained applause, seemingly as mystified by the outcome of her case as the public. (Video From Miller's Speech) "You could see it in people's faces," Ms. Miller said later. "I'm a reporter. People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn't done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished." In the days since, The Times has been consumed by discussions about how the newspaper handled the case, how Times journalists covered the news of their own paper - and about Ms. Miller herself. "Everyone admires our paper's willingness to stand behind us and our work, but most people I talk to have been troubled and puzzled by Judy's seeming ability to operate outside of conventional reportorial channels and managerial controls," said Todd S. Purdum, a Washington reporter for The Times. "Partly because of that, many people have worried about whether this was the proper fight to fight." Diana B. Henriques, a business reporter, said she and others at the paper took "great pride and comfort" in how The Times stood by Ms. Miller. But she said the episode and speculation surrounding it "left a lot of people feeling confused and anxious" about Ms. Miller's role in the investigation. On Tuesday, Ms. Miller is to receive a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists. She said she thought she would write a book about her experiences in the leak case, although she added that she did not yet have a book deal. She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom. She said she hopes to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions. "It's too early to judge it, and it's probably for other people to judge," said Mr. Keller, the executive editor. "I hope that people will remember that this institution stood behind a reporter, and the principle, when it wasn't easy to do that, or popular to do that."

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:22 pm

Miller is most likely an operation mockingbird asset whom is in on some of the crimes including being a set up for"suicides". Kelly was alive one wk hangin with miller and the next wk.. "a suicide". NYT is now a disgraced paper and they will be backpeddlin with the expexcted 'mea culpas' for yrs.. NYCrimes should be their new name

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:40 pm

The Times article was a real disppointment, didn't get into near as much as it should have. Here is some some of what I get from it, emphasis mine: 1. For whatever reasons, the Times failed to manage an out-of-control reporter. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk," Mr. Sulzberger said.<hr></blockquote> And: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby's identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with him. Both said they viewed the case as a matter of principle, which made the particulars less important. "I didn't interrogate her about the details of the interview," Mr. Keller said. "I didn't ask to see her notes. And I really didn't feel the need to do that."<hr></blockquote> 2. The Times now admits that 5 of its 6 articles that it had to apologize to the public for in its mea culpa on being wrong about WMD's had been written or co-authored by Judith. 3.Judith Miller is a liar, and is the SECOND (at least) reporter who has lied directly to Times bosses in recent years, embroiling the publisher in big credibility problems. Even the supervisor of the first reporter Jayson Blair, got fired. Judith did not. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists," Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it."<hr></blockquote> 4. Judith constantly testified to the grand jury using the the evasive phrase, "My notes show.." rather than stating what she remembered. 5. Judith claims to not remember who first told her Plame's name, an obvious lie. 6. Other reporters' ability to report the news was undermined by Times' management forcing the reporters to tippy-toe around any related news. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Some reporters said editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about other aspects of the case as well, like how it was being investigated by Mr. Fitzgerald. In July, Richard W. Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article about the role of Mr. Cheney's senior aides, including Mr. Libby, in the leak case. The article, which did not disclose that Mr. Libby was Ms. Miller's source, was not published. Mr. Stevenson said he was told by his editors that the article did not break enough new ground. "It was taken pretty clearly among us as a signal that we were cutting too close to the bone, that we were getting into an area that could complicate Judy's situation," he said.<hr></blockquote> Looks to me like the management pandered to Judith for some reason. It cost the Times millions in legal fees, but that is nothing compared to the loss of their credibility....again. Like Judy, the Times is trying to look like it is standing on principle, but what they are standing on at best is mismanagement. Note: If you're going to play hopscotch, and you have a weak leg, do your jumping on the good one. Ohmygod, what if her secret source is Richard Clarke? Any connections between Clarke and Kelly? Who better would know Plame's status, outside the CIA? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"...and frequent 30-minute visits from more than 100 friends and colleagues. Among them were Mr. Sulzberger; Tom Brokaw, the former anchor at NBC News; Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official; and John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador to the United Nations."<hr></blockquote>

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:53 pm

can't comment now except must say BIG thanks to pam and anti and dbeach and chig and all keeping this updated so well! Much appreciated right now!!

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:03 pm

"Ohmygod, what if her secret source is Richard Clarke? Any connections between Clarke and Kelly? Who better would know Plame's status, outside the CIA?" EXCELLENT PT. Keep it alive.. I read last yr that Clark was in on keeping it all quiet and he stands to look like a hero if the indictments get ONLY rove,libby and card..

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:15 pm

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke</a> bio of clark spy guy for 4 presidents from Ronni Raygum to the smirking coward CLARK KNOWS ALL..he must be covering for clintons and has his lil ole retirement all set up..writing books and taking bows..regardless if the busheviks win or lose..guys like clark are part of the prolem..he puts out lots of Truths but he knows what he could put out..to help the US Citizens..but he DON'T.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:51 pm

Time to keep our eye on the mark as to the real crime committed, and we are NOT TALKING ABOUT OUTING A CIA UNDERCOVER AGENT. We are talking here about covering up Cheney, Phoney baloney Tony and GWB's ongoing blackmarket sales of nuclear components to our "enemies" which Plame's network were getting close to uncovering. Plame and Wilson are COMPLICIT in exposing her OWN network so that they could protect Bush/Cheney. THIS IS THE CRIME. The layer of exposing an undercover agent to "get political revenge" is the smokescreen. Here is CS's brilliant article from 2004, please read every word as his site has already been hacked once: Friday, August 19, 2005 TREASONGATE: IN CAHOOTS -- How The White House, Wilson, Novak, Corn and Plame Conspired for Treason [UPDATE: Aug. 20.2005, 10:12 a.m. Since I first posted this report last night, reader Ron has informed me that David Corn published, on August 8th, a watered down synthesis of previous Citizen Spook reports on the Controlling Laws of Treasongate. Corn did not mention, or link to, Citizen Spook. Also, comments at his site were mysteriously disabled. DEVELOPING.] Actions speak. Words lie. Action follows motive. Motivation is a microscope. You must think like a spook in order to understand the totality of these crimes. This report will challenge you to focus like a genius intelligence operative, to look a few moves ahead...and behind. We've been caught in a web of deceit, so intricate, so devious, so arrogant and dark that there may actually be no escape. If "we the people" don't make those responsible for Treasongate pay for their sins against this country, we deserve everything they've got planned for us down the road to perdition. ANATOMY OF THE ALLEGED "SMEAR CAMPAIGN" For the last two years, we've all heard about "the smear campaign" hurled upon Joe Wilson by the Bush administration to punish him for writing the New York Times oped concerning the fake Niger documents. Revenge and political payback is the motivation universally attributed to the Bush syndicate. It's bullshit. Joe Wilson was not smeared. He went from relative obscurity to national fame, book deals, talk show circuit, hero status accepting, freedom fighting, whistleblowing, saintly coronation. None of it is deserved. Joe Wilson is in cahoots with the Bush Administration along with David Corn, Bob Novak and Valerie Plame Wilson, a cast of spooks who have only just been outed with the writing of this article. They've carefully scripted this entire affair to shield themselves from prosecution for monolithic treasons against US citizens and our military. Treasongate, Rovegate, Leakgate, whatever you want to call it, is, in reality, an intricate version of hide and seek where the "perpetraitors" have been controlling both sides of the game. Regardless of the crimes committed by this and past administrations, as long as their spin can divide the people on political lines, justice, true justice, will never be served. If the crime can be given a political spin, the perps can literally get away with any crime, even Treason. They've carefully crafted both sides of this national debate to give both liberal and conservative pundits enough ammunition to keep a heated firefight going in the media. The smokescreen generated by this firefight has diverted our attention from examining: 1. The controlling laws applicable to these facts. 2. The motivations of the Bush administration, Joe Wilson and his wife, and the two news villains responsible for initiating this ruse; Bob Novak, and David Corn. 3. The damage to our national security caused by the leaking of Plame's name and front company (Brewster Jennings & Associates) as well as the damage caused by other leaks which show a Bush Administration Modus Operandi (MO) of outing intelligence assets for nefarious purposes. Their media ruse has, so far, been a complete success. Not one major publication has examined the controlling laws, Espionage statutes found in 18 USC 793 and 794. They've steered the country away from analyzing Plame's outing as espionage by repeating ad nauseam that the motivation for the leak was "political payback." This has enabled them to divide and conquer "we the people" along party lines. Political payback can be spun, espionage cannot. This is why Joe Wilson, David Corn and all of the liberal media have steered wide of calling this leak exactly what it is, Treason: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, JOSEPH WILSON, ROBERT NOVAK, DAVID CORN,VALERIE PLAME ET ALS HAVE CONSPIRED TO EXPOSE NETWORKS OF GENUINE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS AND THEIR SOURCES WHO WERE CLOSING IN ON TREASONOUS ACTS PERPETRATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO FURTHER AN INSIDIOUS AGENDA OF EMPIRE EXPANSION THROUGH STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM DESIGNED TO CREATE A THIRST FOR REVENGE AND JUSTICE IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The meticulous outing of Plame and the media circus that ensued was designed as a smokescreen to cloud the truth and the law while they exposed CIA networks operating to stop WMD proliferation. Genuine agents and sources were left out in the cold while targets were warned and allowed to escape. This is not easy to comprehend. So it's imperative to suspend judgment while you examine this. You must be an impartial juror. Listen objectively to the facts. Analyze the application of those facts to the law. Consider the motives of those involved and then look for MO to back it up. WHAT LAWS ARE INVOLVED AND WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES? The one law everybody has heard of regarding this matter is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (IIPA). In my two part series, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law Part 1 Part 2, I explained that, despite the media feeding frenzy involved with analyzing the IIPA, it is totally irrelevant with regards to the Plame leak. [I strongly urge the reader to carefully study my previous reports explaining these laws before continuing here.] The IIPA is an intricate piece of work that has a ton of wiggle room while Title 18 of our United States Code, particularly 18 USC 793 and more importantly 794, the Espionage statutes, have virtually no wiggle room for the perpetraitors responsible for leaking Plame's identity (Novak) and her covert status (Corn). Ever since July 16th 2003, when David Corn first discussed the applicability of the IIPA to these facts, the IIPA has been the sole focus of discussion in the main stream media and the blogosphere. The concept that all of these spook perpetraitors put their faith in was that if Joe Wilson was talking about the IIPA as the controlling law, then the IIPA would be accepted, by the media and the people, as the controlling law, since Joe Wilson, more than anybody, would want to see the evil Bush administration put away for outing his CIA wife. And when Joe Wilson issued statements to the effect that conviction under the IIPA was probably not going to happen, the rest of us could just let this blow over while a few Bush operatives were given slaps on the wrist. All the while, Joe Wilson was running protection for the leakers because Wilson and his wife are Bush administration double agent operatives who have something to hide, something big, something towering. THE LAW Let me give a short recap for those readers who are not aware of the analysis for 18 USC 794(b) 18 USC 794(b) carries a maximum penalty of death or life in prison. 18 USC 794(b) mandates prosecution of anybody who, in time of war, intentionally communicates information relating to the public defense which might be useful to the enemy. Question 1: Were we in a time of war when CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson was outed? Answer: Yes. Despite recent attempts by the Bush administration to shift the policy lingo from GWOT, "global war on terror", to GSAVE,"global struggle against violent extremism", we were "in time of war" back in June/July 2003. And our soldiers are still dying on the same battlefield today. We are still "in time of war". If you have any doubt, just ask the families of our soldiers who died that battlefield. Ask them if we were/are in a time of war. Next question. Question 2: Was information that related to the public defense communicated? Answer: The information communicated to Bob Novak outed a CIA operative who coordinated covert agents working on WMD proliferation issues. Nothing could be more related to the "public defense". The answer is yes. Question 3: Was the information intentionally communicated to the enemy? Answer: Federal case law has consistently held that there is no difference, for purposes of proving "intent", between communicating the relevant information to a spy and communicating it to the press, since the whole world will be notified of the information upon publication. The answer is yes. Question 4: "Might" the information be useful to the enemy? Answer: A CIA operative involved with WMD proliferation and the name of a CIA front company used for such intelligence purposes were exposed. This law does not require that the information communicated... must be useful... to the enemy, 18 USC 794(b) only requires that the information... might be useful... to the enemy. The answer is yes, the information might be useful to the enemy. Question 5: Who is the enemy? Answer: The terrorists. Please note that the statute does not require the perp to communicate directly to the enemy, 794(b) only requires that the perp intends for the information to be communicated to the enemy. There's no wiggle room. Everybody in the Government who holds a security clearance had to sign a non-disclosure agreement which warns that they can be prosecuted under 18 USC 794 if they violate that agreement. Not that 794(b) requires the information communicated to be classified, it doesn't. The non-disclosure agreement warns about violating 794(b), so let's not pretend it's an obscure law. Everybody involved was aware of it. This is the United States Code, federal law of the land. Once you understand 18 USC 794(b), air tight convictions for the Plame leakers become apparent. There's nothing to argue about. There's no wiggle room. The law was drafted to stop espionage, to stop people from exposing our intelligence assets. Maybe you're familiar with them; the CIA, NSA, FBI, departments of our Government we the people pay hundreds of billions for, to protect us from being attacked here at home, and to protect our soldiers abroad. 18 USC 794 has been used to put traitors away for life. It's the law of the land. Their ruse involved spinning the Plame leak as revenge and political payback connecting it to the decision to go to war thereby causing "we the people" to become divided. Then they threw a complicated statute into the mix, the IIPA, which allows convincing arguments, both for and against conviction under these facts, so the political smokescreen expanded to an opaque impenetrable thickness. The national debate that went into the IIPA was intense. Focus that same amount of media energy on 794(b), and there will be a genuine revolution in this country. Imagine the talking head pundits stuck for words, silenced by facts, unable to divide an educated population. Most Americans, spanning the entire political spectrum, are capable of understanding that these controlling federal laws, 18 USC 793 and 794, have been broken, if those laws were sufficiently explained to them. Following such a national debate, US citizens will demand to know why the Bush administration risked prosecution under such punishing laws. And they will also demand to know why Joe Wilson hasn't been calling for prosecution under these laws. Once we the people start asking the right questions, the Government and media spin trance fails, they lose control of our minds, and we begin to think for ourselves, to use our minds instead of allowing our minds be used by the enemy. They created "wiggle room" where there was no wiggle room by guiding your attention, from both liberal and conservative media sources, to the irrelevant Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Violation of 18 USC 794(b) can lead to the death penalty or life in prison, a much greater punishment than under the IIPA. So you would expect that those involved with outing a CIA operative and a CIA front company might think twice about breaking this law. And this leads to the following questions about motivation which really get to the heart of this intricate ruse: 1. WOULD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION VIOLATE 18 USC 794 KNOWING SUCH A VIOLATION COULD LEAD TO DEATH OR LIFE IN PRISON JUST TO "SMEAR" JOE WILSON? No. They aren’t' that stupid. These are intelligent people who have procured the Executive Branch of the US Government. 18 USC 794 has put people like Aldrich Ames away for life. This is a very serious law. Nobody in the Bush administration was going to break it just to bitch slap Joe Wilson. That's the fecal toast Joe Wilson and David Corn originally served over two years ago, a meal that has been uniformly consumed by America, so please don't eat it anymore. It's a lie, and a rather bad one at that. Focus on the penalty; death or life in prison. The motivation of a bitch slap does not fit the crime. The Bush administration must have had a greater motivation to risk prosecution under 794(b). Furthermore, they had to know they were turning Joe Wilson into a star the liberal media would canonize. They did no harm to Joe Wilson, and they did no harm to his wife. This so called outing" scandal is actually cover for their conspiratorial treason, the betrayal of her network and the work it was doing. Valerie Plame Wilson = Double Agent Plame and Wilson are double agents in the "Intelligence war" going on between the treasonous Bush administration and divisions of US Intelligence and the military. The Plame/Wilson double agent status becomes obvious when you examine Joe Wilson's actions under the electron microscope of motivation: 2. WHAT IS JOE WILSON'S MOTIVATION FOR NOT RAISING THE ISSUE OF 18 USC 794? “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” That is a direct quote given by Joseph Wilson to David Corn for the infamous (and treasonous) report published on July 16, 2003,in The Nation; wherein Corn leaked Plame's "undercover" status as a CIA officer. "This is the stuff of...Aldrich Ames." It's really quite an amazing quote which history may record as being the smoking dung gun that toppled this administration and put Joe Wilson and the other co-conspirators behind bars. USA, you've been hoodwinked big time. Aldrich Ames is serving life in prison for his violation of 18 USC 794. He leaked the identity of several NOC CIA Officers to the Soviets. So, Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, if you are so outraged at the Bush administration, why aren't you screaming for a prosecution of the people responsible for outing your wife under the same statute? You've compared the crimes of Aldrich Ames to those involved with the outing of your wife, so why aren't you pounding your fist for the special prosecutor to invoke the same law which put Ames away for life? You've never even mentioned it. MOTIVATION Wilson certainly can't claim ignorance of the law. He's issued detailed analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, on the record, during a public Q&A at one of his glorious book signings, recorded by William Kaminsky, wherein Wilson discussed the intricacies of the IIPA and explained in great detail that convictions under that act were unlikely. He exhibited a great knowledge of that law while forwarding the diversionary spin started by his pal, David Corn. From Kaminsky's blog : "Meeting Joe Wilson (Part 1 of 2) On Thursday night, the venerable and most definitely left-leaning Harvard Book Store held a lecture/question and answer session/book signing event with Ambassador Joseph Wilson... First of all, Ambassador Wilson has every confidence in the dedication and prosecutorial skills of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. However, Wilson concedes a point many of the Administration's defenders make: it will be extremely hard to convict anyone of violating the most serious (and most often discussed) of the applicable laws, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (United States Code, Title 50, Sections 421-426). Rather, Wilson thought that a prosecutor wanting a winnable case would have to settle for the weaker charge of disclosure of classified information (United States Code, Title 18, Section 79<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> ...While technically disclosure of classified information can be a felony carrying the same maximum penalty of a fine and 10 years imprisonment as violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it apparently can also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor charge, and this is what Wilson thought likely..." Hey Joe, you're quick on your feet whipping out that 18 USC 798 softball law along with the IIPA, so why don't you flip a few sections back to 793 and 794? Wilson might answer, "Well Spook, thing is, this was a smear, I tell ya. I was shmeered, Spook. They shmeered me, man. They wanted to hurt me and my CIA wife real bad because I'm an award winning courageous patriot who stood up to their forgeries and told the world from the beacon of the New York Times. It's not espionage. It's a smear campaign. I don’t think we really need to distract the population with the Espionage act Spook, do we?" Well, Joe, I think we do need to distract the population. I mean, after all, you told David Corn that one of our "star" intelligence assets was outed thereby crippling many operations, scattering agents to the four winds and possibly the grim reaper's door, crushing national security. "This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames". Sorry Joe, but motive, while an excellent tool of analysis, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the Espionage laws were broken. The law doesn't give a rats ass what the Bush administration's motive was for breaking the law. The law does not provide a motive defense. They can tell the judge and jury at trial, "Yeah, so we outed her network, but we did it to shmeer Joe Wilson, not to cause damage to national security." But the cold hard fact remains,18 USC 794 doesn't care. There's no "motive" requirement. Sorry Joe, this is treason. You said it yourself, "This is the stuff of Aldrich Ames". What an amazing quote. The cold, made of steel, unbendable law, 18 USC 794, is the reason Wilson has been guiding American attention spans to the IIPA. As long as we were focused on the IIPA, convictions would be very hard to come by. Wilson was running protection. Back to Kaminsky's report on Wilson's book signing: "Wilson offered two reasons for his pessimism: 1. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act explicitly says that it is a valid defense versus prosecution to claim an operative's identity has previously been revealed... It is clear that the Administration's defenders intend to use this defense... But anyways, when all is said and done, this isn't the main reason why Ambassador Wilson is pessimistic about the prospects of a successful prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, his main reason is: 1. Right at its outset, the Act qualifies that disclosing a covert operative's identity is illegal only if it is done intentionally and in the knowledge that the government is still actively maintaining a cover for operative... Wilson said he believed that anyone accused under the Act thus could successfully mount the defense that he or she knew only that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA and not that the CIA actively maintained a cover (or covers) for her as a operative in the Clandestine Service who was active in the last 5 years." Look at Wilson go. He's got that spin down pat. On the one hand, he's literally crying in public over the outing of his CIA wife, "If I could give you back your anonymity....", while on the other hand, he creates the Bush admin defense all in one gasp of legal puke. He exhibits a knowledge of various US Code as well as a perfect analysis of the IIPA, while steering the entire country away from the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793. Have a look at Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth", and look for any mention of 18 USC 793 or 794. It's not there. His books starts with a section called, "Anatomy Of A Smear": "...a vindictive government has used the press in order to try to destroy an opponent." (pg. 2) The Plame leak only made the Bush administration appear guilty as sin regarding the Niger documents and the fraudulent reasons for going to war, and I submit to you that this is exactly what the Bush administration and its operatives intended. The decision to go to war was a political issue, and the country is divided along party lines, so it's safe for them to risk the appearance of guilt by "outing" Wilson's wife and looking guilty as long as Wilson, Corn and everybody else repeats the mantra that it was done for revenge, political payback, etc. But the true motivation was to stop the agents she was working with from gathering evidence of mass murder; past present and future. To smear Wilson is ridiculous considering the possible penalty for Treason, and to smear him knowing it makes you look guilty of fixing the intelligence is even more insane unless that's exactly what you were trying to do...look insane. To out Plame and smear Wilson as a smokescreen for a greater sin, a greater Treason, a Treason of past and future murder of innocent citizens...now that is a motivation that warranted risking their violation of 18 USC 794. Their gambit was centered on Wilson controlling the media circus, steering everybody towards the IIPA, and away from 18 USC 794. If Wilson, cast in the starring role as the husband filled with anger for the damage and danger put on his wife, was talking about the IIPA, well then, who could argue with him? Who had more motivation for wanting the leakers put away than Joe Wilson? Nobody,...if you believe this crap. And Joe Wilson not only took the baton from David Corn regarding the IIPA, but he further protected the Bush leakers even from prosecution under that irrelevant law by stating his opinion that convictions were unlikely due to the "wiggle room" written into the IIPA. Mr. Wilson, you brought up the name Aldrich Ames, so why don't you bring up the law he was convicted under? In the two plus years this script (and that is exactly what he's reading from) has been played out, you haven't mentioned the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793. You haven't called for the people responsible for outing your wife and her entire CIA network to be thrown in jail with Aldrich Ames for life. No, instead you've conspired to fool the country into burying its head in your smokescreen. Chris Matthews told Joe Wilson that Karl Rove said, "Wilson's wife is fair game." From Wilson's book, page 1: " ' Wilson's wife is fair game.' Those are fighting words for any man..." And you fight back with the lame Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Wilson? Your actions don't back up your words. Your motivation must be lacking since you could have responded in kind with your own fighting words. Had you responded as follows, perhaps we could believe you, Joe Wilson. Here's what you should have said: "The people who outed my wife are traitors, no different than Aldrich Ames who was convicted under 18 USC 794. They deserve to be put away for life in the same cell block for Treason." But you didn't say that Mr. Wilson. And if I'm wrong about you and your wife, let's see you start saying it. Get in your Jaguar and ride, bang the drums for Treason, Treason that exposed your wife endangering her life and the lives of her network. Your family was cast in the spotlight by the Bush administration who exposed your loved ones to dangerous covert agents the world over. Why aren't you demanding justice and prosecutions under 18 USC 794(b) for such a dastardly deed? Wilson's book references the IIPA on pages; xxxviii-xxxix, xl, 4, 346, 349, 350-351, 358-360, 384-385, 388, 395-396, and 445. Do you know how many times 18 USC 793 and 794 are mentioned? None, nada, zero. Why do you think that is? Because Wilson never heard of these laws? No. This CIA couple know the law inside out. And they know the carnage that outing her caused to the operations and operatives she was overseeing, people that trusted her whose lives were in her hands. From page 446 of Wilson's book: "We worry about our personal security, but there is little we can do." But nobody dared publish a photo of Plame...until she posed with her husband for the January '94 issue of Vanity Fair. Wasn't it bad enough that her name got out, that her front company was exposed? Why would she follow through by mugging for the camera in Vanity Fair? Isn't that just putting her in more jeopardy? Isn't that making it even easier for enemy agents both here and in foreign lands to reconcile her likeness? You'd think, out of respect for her fellow agents she'd lay low and stay out of the spotlight, but "Valerie was always a star in her profession". (page 446) Now more than ever. It's open season on the NOCS she supervised, the NOCS out there in the field gathering evidence on who? Who do you think? From page 447 of Wilson's book: "We had assumed that on the day the Novak article appeared, every intelligence office in Washington, and probably all those around the world, were running Valerie's name through their databases. Foreign intelligence services would not attack us, but they might as well threaten any contacts Valerie might have made in their countries, and they would certainly be eager to unearth operations she might have been involved in. International terrorist organizations were a different story, however. There was a history of international terrorists attacking exposed officers." So they go on the cover of Vanity Fair like this was a bad episode of Jane Bond. And Wilson goes on the Daily Show for jokes with Jon Stewart. From page 358: "Jon was so humorous that I found myself laughing heartily right along with the audience..." From page 384: "An officer had been exposed, an act that threatened many intelligence professionals." It's hilarious, isn't it, Mr. Wilson? In "The CIA at War", by Ronald Kessler, the Vanity Fair photo was discussed on pages 344-345: "Their claims to have been victimized by the Bush white house were destroyed when they agreed to be photographed sitting in their Jaguar for the January issue of Vanity Fair. Wilson claimed that the fact that his forty-year old wife wore sunglasses and a scarf disguised her. But anyone she dealt with overseas could clearly recognize her..." " 'They risked undermining any possible prosecution by their public statements and appearances,' said John L. Martin who, as Chief of the Justice Department's counterespionage section, was in charge of supervising leak investigations. 'The scarf and the sunglasses worn in the Vanity Fair picture was a sham.' " "In fact, the CIA never would have given permission to appear in a photograph. No doubt because of that, she never asked. Agency officials were stunned." "...Not only had Wilson and Plame subverted their own posturing as victims of the Bush White House, they had undermined the integrity of the CIA's clandestine program to collect intelligence using covert officers. If a CIA officer took her duty to remain in a clandestine role so lightly it could make agents leery of risking their lives to provide intelligence to other CIA officers." Wilson and Plame behaved as if they were trying to make the Bush administration's case for a defense to the IIPA. By showing up in public as they have done, they lend credence to the Bush talking points which argue that Plame's status at the CIA was not covert and that blowing her cover was no big deal. Their gambit was based on the arrogant self belief they could trick the nation into believing its laws against espionage don't exist. Under 18 USC 794, it doesn't matter if she was covert, it only matters whether her name and position were "related to the public defense". Don't forget that State Department memo though. The paragraph her name appeared in was marked "(S)" for secret, and according to a Bush Executive order, that meant her name and job were classified info. The memo is prima facie proof of her status. The Instpundit(December 3rd, 2003) has some interesting insights about the actions of Plame/Wilson: "OKAY, I'M OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCING THE PLAME SCANDAL BOGUS: Former ambassador Joseph Wilson has been quite protective of his wife, Valerie Plame, in the weeks since her cover as a CIA operative was blown. 'My wife has made it very clear that -- she has authorized me to say this -- she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed,' he declared in October on 'Meet the Press'. But that was before Vanity Fair came calling. The January issue features a two-page photo of Wilson and the woman the magazine calls 'the most famous female spy in America,' a 'slim 40-year-old with white-blond hair and a big, bright smile.' They are sitting in their Jaguar... Sorry -- if you're really an undercover spy, and really worried about national security, you don't do this sort of thing... Serious people don't do self-promoting spreads in Vanity Fair where important questions of national security are involved...Not knowing the underlying facts, I have to make my judgment by the behavior of the parties. And judging from that, the scandal is bogus, and Wilson is a self-promoter who can't be trusted. That's my judgment on this matter. Yours, of course, may vary. But if you see Wilson as anything other than a cheesy opportunist, well, then yours really varies...." Mine really does vary, I see him as a facilitator of Treason, the ringleader on an intricate plot to both expose Plame's WMD network and to also protect her and the Bush administration from serious legal scrutiny of their collective Treason. The Vanity Fair publicity, the book deal, the Daily Show appearance, the awards he's accepted...all of it was designed by these spooks to provide cover under the IIPA to distract those honest, conservative leaning citizens and media personnel, who might have been sympathetic to Plame being exposed. The actions of Wilson, despite his tough words, have been calculated to divide the left and the right. You have to give these spooks credit for bravado and hutzpa. More from Instapundit: "Tom Maguire says I told you so. He also notes that saying that Wilson is bogus isn't quite the same as saying that the scandal is bogus. I guess that's right, in theory. But the claim that Plame was endangered is what drove this scandal, and it came from Wilson, who seems to be, well, bogus... I suppose it's still theoretically possible that somebody in the White House deliberately and illegally outed Plame as a way of getting revenge on Wilson for his dumb -- and deeply unprofessional -- oped about his "mission" to Niger. But if you assume that nothing that Wilson says can be relied on because he's a self-promoter who'll stretch a fact to get attention, which seems extremely plausible, then you're not left with much evidence. And the Wilson/Plame couple certainly isn't acting like Plame's life is in danger. They're acting like opportunists milking their 15 minutes and hoping for a lucrative book contract. So pardon me if I conclude that their actions speak louder than Wilson's words..." Wilson and Plame engaged in a course of action that was designed to discredit the investigation. Are you starting to get the picture? THE TREASON OF CORN Corn was the first person to put the IIPA in the public eye. David Corn was now on my radar. I examined Wilson's book and found out, for the first time, that David Corn has been a big player in Treasongate. From The Politics of Truth, page 4: "David Corn, from The Nation magazine, had alerted me and later written the first article pointing out that the disclosure by way of the Novak article might have violated the 1982 IIPA. But whether illegal or not, it was still an unwelcome intrusion into my wife's private life..." So David Corn was the first pawn used to disseminate the spin that the IIPA was the controlling law. And look at Wilson sew the subtle innuendo "whether it was illegal or not." On page 349, Wilson explains Corn's purpose: "Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved." That's some damning evidence right there. Because we know that statement is a bold faced lie carefully designed to continue the illusion that the IIPA was the controlling law. ALL OF THE LEGALITIES INVOLVED? "ALL"??? There’s more to Corn and The Nation than meets the eye. "Nobody owns The Nation" says the commercial being aired on Air America Radio. Bullshit. The Nation also held a special function to present Joe Wilson with the first Ron Ridenhour award for Truth-Telling. It's just so damn transparent. Clifford May's article, "Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?" published in National Review online, July 15th 2005, makes a strong case that, while Novak was the first person to expose "Wilson's wife", Corn is actually the journalist responsible for first publishing Plame's undercover/covert status: "This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA. Read— or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is 'an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction'... So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion. The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: 'Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?' Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing? Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a 'statement of fact.' But in the article, he asserts that Novak 'outed' Plame 'as an undercover CIA officer.' Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, 'outing' Plame’s 'undercover' status. Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, 'I will not answer questions about my wife.' Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed... On what basis could Corn 'assume' that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a 'top-secret' operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been 'outed' in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column... The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own. Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her 'dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.' But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?" Don't misinterpret the meaning of Corn's involvement. Novak is not off the hook, he's responsible under 18 USC 794(b) for intentionally communicating information, related to the public defense, to the enemy, in a time of war, and he's also guilty of violating 18 USC 794(c) for "conspiracy" to violate 18 USC 794(b), so he's in big trouble. Corn's July 16th report, wherein he outed Plame's status as an "undercover CIA officer", puts him on the hook for violation of 18 USC 794(b) and (c) as well, since Plame's "status", that of "undercover CIA officer", was first published by Corn, not Novak. Corn was the media ringleader on the left. Novak held that title on the right. And together they pulled the wool over the eyes of the Nation. Moreover, it's no defense under 18 USC 793 and 794 that the perp have knowledge that the information communicated was officially classified as being "Secret" as long as the information was "related to the public defense" and was intentionally communicated to the enemy, in a time of war. Also, federal case law, particularly US v. Morison, holds that First Amendment "freedom of the press" arguments are not a defense for violators of the Espionage statutes, 793 and 794. Corn and Novak are both guilty of Treason, if not directly under 794(b), indirectly, under 794(c) for conspiracy. Clifford May raised another interesting question: "Corn concludes that Plame’s career 'has been destroyed by the Bush administration.' And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: 'Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.' Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee. But he is willing to say on the record that 'naming her this way' was an act of treachery? That’s not talking about his wife? That’s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis. If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don’t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out." It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. Who will turn (has turned?) State's evidence first, second, third? Valerie Plame will be the toughest conviction in this treason conspiracy. I suppose a creative prosecutor, if he establishes that Plame's likeness was information related to the public defense, could successfully prosecute her for transmitting that information to the enemy by agreeing to be photographed for the cover of Vanity Fair. If Fitzgerald were to bring witnesses from the CIA to testify that they never would have given her permission to be photographed for the cover of a major magazine, and those witnesses could bring evidence that her likeness "might be used", or was used, by the enemy, she could be prosecuted under 18 USC 793 and 794(b) and (c). THE MODUS OPERANDI OF PRIOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION LEAKS Daithí Mac Lochlainn of Melbourne Indymedia; first alerted me to the Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan leak situation. Daithi is organizing a petition to gather support insisting that the Government investigate this incredible treason. Justin Raimondo of >Antiwar.com; has written a very interesting report on that leak: Who 'Outed' Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan?: "Khan, dubbed a 'computer geek' on account of his technical prowess, functioned as a one-man information hub for Al Qaeda, coordinating and forwarding messages between the top leadership and Bin Laden's foot-soldiers worldwide. Once captured, Khan 'flipped' and agreed to cooperate. CIA interrogators had him sending emails to his former confederates all day Sunday and Monday of last week, and getting back encrypted replies. On Monday morning, however, the Times came out with its story, naming Khan and reporting his disclosures as the real basis of the code orange security alerts issued by Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The Times cited both Pakistani and U.S. government officials. It is hard to know what to make of this. Either these unidentified officials had certain knowledge that Bin Laden's New York Times subscription had run out, or else someone deliberately sabotaged a top secret anti-terrorist operation while it was in progress. As is so often the case with this administration, one is faced with the question: is it incompetence, or is it treason?" It's treason. Stop saying it's incompetence. Don't be naive. They hijacked the Executive Branch. They're cold, calculated, evil geniuses. Antiwar.com: " '[CNN's Wolf] Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government.' What a profoundly weird remark... What I'd like to know, however, is who is working as a double agent inside our own government? Because someone has sure sabotaged the hunt for Bin Laden and his cohorts just as effectively as if they'd been working for the Islamists. Rice admits they leaked Khan's name. Leaking is their MO. By admitting the leak, she admitted treason under 18 USC 794 (and 793). Too bad for Condi et als that the information they leaked was related to the public defense and might be useful to the enemy. In this case, "might have" isn't even an issue -- it was useful to the enemy. And it's important to highlight the fact that 18 USC 794 doesn't require the information to be in the form of a covert operative, or anything specific, as is required by the IIPA. It only requires "information" be communicated. WHAT WAS PLAME'S NETWORK WORKING ON THAT CAUSED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO RISK DEATH OR LIFE IN PRISON BY OUTING PLAME? There are some very strong indications. Roger Payne's Blog; of August 5th, 2005, discusses the Khan leak and mentions a very interesting quote by Joe Klein writing for Time Magazine: Joe Klein reported in Time Magazine, June 26, 2004 that Plame 'may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components.' A WMD sting? Really? Now, that's interesting." This ties in with Mark Shapiro's report for Mother Jones; concerning Asher Karni's arrest and coming prosecution for trafficking in WMD components. (Read that article before continuing here.) From Shapiro's report: "But in March, anonymous law enforcement officials complained to the Los Angeles Times that the State Department--afraid of offending Pakistan, its partner in the war on terror--had blocked agents from the Commerce and Homeland Security departments from pursuing those leads and going to Pakistan to interview Khan and others." Valerie Plame, Able Danger, John O'Neil, Sibel Edmonds. The Bush Administration has consistently stopped our intelligence departments from doing their job. MOTIVE? Treason. Shapiro reports that anonymous law enforcement officials complained to the LA Times that the State Department blocked them from investigating leads. But they weren't able to stop the intelligence this time. More from Shapiro's report: "Ultimately, Karni was tripped up not by the system, but by an odd bit of serendipity: a mysterious individual who, starting in the summer of 2003, guided investigators along Karni's labyrinthine trail. The government's complaint against Karni is peppered with references to the 'anonymous source in South Africa' who clued them in to the 'possible diversion of U.S. origin equipment'." Wayne Madsen<; offered the following commentary for Morphizm.com; in an extensive report about the Asher Karni situation: "It is no coincidence that FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds uncovered nuclear material and narcotics trafficking involving Turkish intermediaries with ties to Israel at the same time Brewster Jennings and the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division was hot on the trail of nuclear proliferations tied to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon and the A. Q. Khan network of Pakistan. An arrest in early 2004 points to the links between Israeli agents and Islamist groups bent on producing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. According to intelligence sources, this was a network that was a major focus of Edmonds' and Valerie Plame Wilson's work... Karni's e-mail traffic to and from Khan was being intercepted by a covert agent in South Africa and being forwarded to U.S. authorities. It is not known whether the covert agent was a Brewster Jennings' asset but it would not be surprising considering Karni was an important link in the A. Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network... According to FBI insiders, wiretaps of phone calls in the Giza-Bilmen-Karni smuggling ring yielded the name Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Plans and Policy and one of Donald Rumsfeld's chief advisers, and Turkish MIT intelligence members of the Turkish American Council." It will be interesting to see who decides to cooperate with Patrick Fitzgerald as heads begin to roll and testimony is traded for immunity. By Citizen Spook ------------ What is certain, as Anti has so brilliantly set out, is that the UK is used to launder leaks...Judith Miller was "very good friends" with David Kelly, as she was "very good friends" with Libby...Kelly helped to write her book on "Germs" which came out just after 9/11; she was the person to whom he sent his last e-mail...Could he have been taken out, given that he may have been Judith's 'source', the one she "can't remember"????? St Judith has issued a lawyerly statement about what happened in her meeting with Fitzgerald. Don't believe a word of it. You can be sure that Fitzgerald warned her that if she uttered one word of consequnce concerning her meeting with him she would be back in jail, where, in fact, she belongs anyway. She has taken an "indefinite leave of absence from the NYT effective immediately. She is finished.

by **dbeach** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:11 pm

PAM well put and with some bazzom!! the article of CS is from 2005??n'est pas?? "Time to keep our eye on the mark as to the real crime committed, and we are NOT TALKING ABOUT OUTING A CIA UNDERCOVER AGENT. We are talking here about covering up Cheney, Phoney baloney Tony and GWB's ongoing blackmarket sales of nuclear components to our "enemies" which Plame's network were getting close to uncovering. Plame and Wilson are COMPLICIT in exposing her OWN network so that they could protect Bush/Cheney. THIS IS THE CRIME. The layer of exposing an undercover agent to "get political revenge" is the smokescreen." ANYWHO Qutb or me posted it at DU and CS went from interesting and informed to instant unpopularity faster than U can say Fitzgerald will indict bush and cheney . Now I posted some more CS at PI to more negative rebuttals..the thread being "bush will pardon rove". Conditioned to expect the main media to tell the truth...that is much of the problem in the awake sector of humanity <a href="http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=1987&mesg_id=1987">www.progressiveindependen...sg_id=1987</a>

""Watergate-level event" is about to occur in

Judith Miller

Re: Miller-Kelly

Re: Judith Miller

Fitzgerald supporting CS

More from firedoglake

Re: More from firedoglake

Re: More from firedoglake

NYT article

Re: NYT article

Re: NYT article

Re: NYT article

Re: NYT article

Re: NYT article

Reprinting CS

Re: Reprinting CS

Who is online