Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Cheney and the leak? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/96647-cheney-leak.html)

Cheney and the leak?

Today there was an article in the New York Times about documents showing that Vice President Cheney told his aide Lewis Libby about Valerie Plume (the CIA agent who was married to a war critic and who's name got leaked to the press). Lewis Libby had claimed under oath that he found out about her from journalists first. This shows that statement to have been a lie.

If it can be traced as far up as VP Cheney, do you think that VP Cheney is going to be found to have been involved in the leaking of her name?

Which is the lie? Maybe both?

Consider motivations then vs. now.

BTW, this is the AP article I read:

Quote:

Plame Leak Said to Come From Cheney
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
By Jane Roh

NEW YORK — The White House official who first identified the CIA officer at the heart of a yearslong leak investigation may have been Vice President Dick Cheney (search), sources close to the probe said.

Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby (search), discussed Valerie Plame (search) with reporters and could be facing indictment as a special prosecutor's 22-month-long investigation nears its conclusion. But as first reported by the New York Times, notes of a conversation between Libby and his boss a month before Plame's name was made public indicate Libby learned about the CIA officer during a conversation with the vice president.

The Times reported its sources were lawyers involved in the case. A separate source confirmed their account to FOX News.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Tuesday repeated a phrase that's become very familiar to reporters, telling them he would not comment on "the investigation while it's ongoing."

It would not likely have been a crime for Cheney and Libby to have discussed Plame, since both presumably possessed security clearances. But the revelation of the conversation, which was likely already well known by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald (search) and comes mere days before possible criminal charges are expected, raises more questions than it answers.

Among them: For what purpose did Cheney disclose Plame's identity to Libby? Was Cheney aware Libby apparently then discussed Plame with Karl Rove (search), President Bush's deputy chief of staff, and that both were talking about her with reporters? Did Cheney speak to reporters about Plame himself?

Not all the sources in this case are known to the public. One of syndicated columnist Robert Novak's (search) sources is a mystery, as is the identity of the person who discussed Plame with Walter Pincus (search) of the Washington Post. New York Times reporter Judith Miller (search) said she "could not recall" who gave her Plame's name, which she misspelled as "Valerie Flame" in a notebook.

The new development could mean Libby is at risk of perjury or obstruction charges, since it has been widely reported that he told a grand jury that he initially learned Plame's identity during conversations with journalists.

The White House has been bracing itself for the end of Fitzgerald's probe, expected on Friday when the grand jury's term expires. Both Rove and Libby have been informed that they could face indictment.

Fitzgerald, a U.S. prosecutor in Chicago, has been tasked with determining whether Plame's identity was leaked in order to discredit her husband, former Amb. Joseph C. Wilson. Wilson had traveled to Niger in a CIA-sponsored trip to check out allegations that Iraqi officials sought to purchase nuclear weapons materials there. Wilson wrote up his findings in a Times op-ed titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

Wilson's report that the Iraq-Niger connection was dubious at best led to an embarrassing episode for Bush: the White House's retraction of 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union speech that were used to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq.

Wilson was reportedly on the administration's radar as a potential troublemaker before Novak identified his wife, Plame, on July 14, 2003. According to Tuesday's Times report, Cheney learned Plame's identity in a conversation about her husband with then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Wilson has been the subject of criticism himself. Libby and Rove apparently discussed Plame with reporters to wave them off Wilson's hints that Cheney's office had anything to do with his Niger trip. Defenders of the administration have said that Plame arranged her husband's trip, suggesting cronyism, but reports indicate she merely suggested him as qualified for the task.

Tuesday's reports are the first indications that the vice president discussed Plame with aides. Since Fitzgerald last interviewed Cheney more than a year ago, the revelations could indicate that discrepancies between Cheney and Libby's testimony have surfaced.

The contents of the memo also raise questions about a September 2003 Sunday talk show interview Cheney gave, in which he denied knowing Wilson and had "no idea who hired him."

The Times reported that Cheney last gave testimony under oath a year ago. It is not yet known if he acknowledged speaking to Libby about Wilson's wife.

McClellan dismissed the notion that Cheney was dishonest about his role in the leak.

"I think it's a ridiculous question," he said. "The vice president, like the president, is a straightforward, plainspoken person."

Before Tuesday, the only thing known about Libby's dealings with the grand jury was that he testified he first learned Plame's identity from other reporters. Most of the heat in this case had been on Rove, Bush's longtime adviser, who also discussed Plame with journalists.

"I don't know whether it's a good day to be Karl Rove, but it's certainly taking the spotlight off him," said Michael Greenberger (search), director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland.

"I still think Rove may have problems in things he told the grand jury that were inconsistent with later stories he told them. I certainly don't think he will rest easy until he hears he's not indicted."

Greenberger said the last-minute revelation about Cheney might be an indication Fitzgerald has the case wrapped up.

"Maybe there is some attempt going on now, if Libby is indicted, to turn him against the vice president," Greenberger said. "It appears what Fitzgerald has been trying to find out is whether Cheney set in motion an operation to try to leak the name of Valerie Plame."

For several months, sources within the investigation have been telling reporters that it was unlikely anyone would be charged with violating a 1982 act that made it illegal to intentionally blow a covert U.S. agent's cover. Plame's undercover status has been the subject of debate, and testimony indicates there is little to prove Rove or Libby knew her identity was a secret.

But Fitzgerald has reportedly been mulling other charges, possibly obstruction of justice in an investigation and conspiracy. That he is apparently waiting until the 11th hour to announce his findings has been the source of great tension and speculation in the Beltway.

A former federal prosecutor who investigated national security matters for nearly three decades said Fitzgerald is just doing his duty by keeping details of the investigation top-secret.

"The press has really been driving this story," said John L. Martin, now a consultant.

"I don't know if we're seeing a tenth of the picture or half of it or even the whole picture. We just aren't even in a position to assess that," Martin said of media speculation.

If Rove or Libby is indicted on anything, it is likely either or both would resign.

While sitting presidents cannot be indicted, charges may be brought against sitting vice presidents.

In my opinion, the most important part of that article:

Quote:

It would not likely have been a crime for Cheney and Libby to have discussed Plame, since both presumably possessed security clearances.

Cheney's involvement suggests not that Cheney was the source of the leak, but that Libby lied about learning of Plame from conversations with journalists who knew from some other source. Particularly damning is the fact that this conversation with Cheney about Plame was documented in Libby's own notes - so there is no reason to expect that he would have forgotten before giving testimony.

This clear statement about Cheney may be a sign the Libby will be the sacrificial lamb, especially if the story can be cast that Rove got the name from Libby as well (placing Libby squarely in the middle and thus exonerating the rest of the crew).

Quote:

This clear statement about Cheney may be a sign the Libby will be the sacrificial lamb, especially if the story can be cast that Rove got the name from Libby as well (placing Libby squarely in the middle and thus exonerating the rest of the crew).

Fitzgerald may have something more that we don't know about, but your assessment would be the best possible choice for damage control.

The big problem now will be the people who lied under oath.

I dunno what the big hub-bub is about. I'm pretty sure that Bush would pardon his two political allies who have been with him through his presidency, so I sincerely doubt many people will see jail time. And I don't think that this is a big enough national scandal that it will be that important.

I think all the scandles with the GOP lately could lead to a backlash in the midterm elections which could also carry onto the next elections.

If libby is guilty of perjury he should go to jail. Cheney talking about Plame is not illegal since he is privy to that sort of information. The only wrong-doing in this whole mess is the attempt to "cover-up" the "source."

A. Its not illegal to disclose the name of a covert agent if it is unknown that that person was covert.

B. Plame was not covert at the time her name was "leaked" to the media. She was covert in the past. But for the previous five years she worked in Langly, VA. Her friends and family knew this. How is that covert?

The dems keep throwing scandle after scandle at the bush administration, hoping one will stick. I personally hope there are indictments in this case, and not for obstruction of justice or some small potatoes, I want to see indictments for outing plame so that fitzgerald gets torn a new one (metaphorically speaking) in the courtroom. But that is precisely why we wont see any indictments handed down, other than possibly one for scooter, if he did in fact lie under oath.

Stevo, I see your points. I would offer this in response:

Even if outing Plame was not at crime, lying under oath is a big deal for a public official. It isn't Scooter Libby's place to determine that the investigation is pointed at a non-crime and therefore it is ok to lie to the prosecutor. Perjury is a big deal, and this is a national security case. This to me was the extremely valid part of Clinton's impeachment (which, clearly, I recognize was not a national security case). If public officials haven't yet learned that the coverup is always worse than the scandal, it really makes me wonder how often the coverups pay off. How many things are happening and hushed up that we never hear about?

Cheney can talk about Plame. Cheney can't say, "tell Rove to leak that Plame is an agent."

When he is under oath, he'll certainly deny he said anything like that.

Oh, and the lie about the leak coming from the press? Real nice. Thanks, Bush administration, I don't knock the hookers off the grill when you're working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Without a doubt, lying under oath is a crime. If libby did that he should go to jail. And I definately agree with you from nixon to bush and everyone in between the coverup has always been worse than the crime. and it appears politicians will never learn this lesson. And then you pose another good question. I guess you'd have to be privy to some classified information to know that one now, wouldn't you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

He doesn't have to, its not a leak. A month before Novak got plame's name from someone in the whitehouse, wilson was at a democratic fundraiser and in a speach he gave he "outed" his own wife as a CIA agent.

Don't you guys see, there was no crime here, and if there was wilson should be indicted first, for he let her name out before anyone else. But she wasn't a covert agent at the time, and hadn't been for half a decade. Like I said. Its all just a game and the democrats keep trying to get some kind of accusation to stick because they can't win at the ballot box.

This is a description from a website for the EPIC Iraq Forum 2003. Joe Wilson spoke there June 14, 2003 at 5pm. This website was set up prior to that event and his description was too.
http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/ep...maudio2003.php

Quote:

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV served as a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 until 1998. From 1988 to 1991, Ambassador Wilson served in Baghdad as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy. As acting Ambassador during "Desert Shield," he was responsible for the negotiations that resulted in the release of several hundred American hostages. He was the last official American to meet with Saddam Hussein before the launching of "Desert Storm." Ambassador Wilson graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1972. He has been decorated as a Commander in the Order of the Equatorial Star by the Government of Gabon and as an Admiral in the El Paso Navy by the El Paso County Commissioners. He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has four children. Hear Ambassador Joe Wilson now.Or download and listen.

So a month before the Novak piece came out, here it is, on a public website, the name of joe wilson's wife, Valarie Plame.

Now someone please explain to me how the whithouse outed a covert CIA agent.

I'm failing to see where he said what Novak said, that she was a CIA agent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I don't see the CIA referenced in that quote at all. We know he was married. We didn't know she was with the CIA.

does anyone know where I can find some sort of timeline or summary for all of this business? I have been trying to pay attention to it, but it seems to get more confusing every time. I know pretty much the details of the leak thing, but I hear things about forged documents and such, and it seems like I hear a new name every day... someone help me out? I'm trying to stay on top of all of this.

The whole point is that no one was trying to hide her name or identity. If she truely was covert he would not have listed her name. The point is she wasn't covert. She had to have lived and operated overseas in the past five years. she hadn't been. she worked in langly va for the previous 5 years. her friends and family knew she worked at the cia. She was anything but a covert agent.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...6----000-.html The definition of a covert CIA agent

Quote:

4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Here is a column from Novak discussing Plame's covertness from a few weeks ago, well, here's the link to the whole column and the important parts. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...01/168398.html

Quote:

...To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret....

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry...

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.

Wilson himself said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Wilson

My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity

http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...?article=57825

Quote:

Originally Posted by anleja

these stories will do a good job of catching you up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401405.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401690.html

She was a covert agent previously. A covert agent who made contacts that were potentially threatened if found out. She became an un-covert worker. But her contacts would still be threatened if it was know that she had been a covert agent.

She wasn't outed as a CIA worker, she was described and outed as a covert agent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I still fail to see your argument. Example: Peter Parker's name is in the newspaper every day as a photographer, but that doesn't mean that anyone knows he is Spiderman, because he is undercover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

these stories will do a good job of catching you up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401405.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401690.html

Thanks! You work fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

because he is undercover.

Undercover being the key point.

Plame hasn't been undercover for several years.

I posted an article written by the authors of the law that the current adminstration is accused of breaking and this was the point they made.

No crime was committed because she wasn't undercover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

That's a technicality, and bullshit. As pointed out above to out an agent whether they are active or not puts lives at stake and is wrong for any reason.

And if our policy is now to out agents because they are not of the same political mindset as our president, then we are fucked as a country, because every 4 years we run the risk of having all our agents outed. The same with a policy of outing an agent because the spouse is critical of the president.

The administration can and probably will sit there and claim they did nothing illegal, but it is immoral, unethical and flat assed wrong in every aspect.

Those who condemned Clinton, should also condemn this action just as hard, if not moreso because the Right claim to be the moral and righteous and GOD driven party, yet say a word against the administration and watch them destroy you.

It is illegal to out the covert activities of an agent. That is what happened in this case.

Lebell, can you point out where this article is?

I stopped paying attention to the articles Stevo posted after he claimed that the printing of Plame's name in any context whatsoever (including, say, a context in which her job isn't mentioned!) implies that her cover was already broken. @_@

Don't be so quick to blame the administration Pan. Your taking the bait the bush-haters hang and run with it.

Did you read what Novak says?

Did you read "He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Has it occured to you that maybe this is all news about nothing? The only reason there is all this commotion is because the justice dept took a quick look at it one weekend and dismissed it. But the bush-hating media decided to make something out of this because they are so dead set on getting rid of bush. Has it?

The Bush hating media? Are these the same guys that rode Clinton for bylines and adoration from the right?

Here's a clue to that: the media is almost entirely owned by rich white guys. Not a hotbed of liberalism. Or even democrats.

Additionally, there's enough just in your statement that warrants the investigation and possible indictment. "PROBABLY will never again.." PROBABLY. "use of her name might cause DIFFICULTIES"

Oh, and, "HE ASKED ME NOT TO USE HER NAME".

I'm not dead set on getting rid of Bush through scandal and whatnot. I do want the truth to be told, and I despise that they blamed the leak on the media.

I am laughing out loud at the argument that "We knew he was married to Plame..." That was never hidden nor should it have been, hell that is public record. What wasn't known is that Plame was not a consultant like her neighbors thought... she was a undercover CIA agent.

Quote:

Here's a clue to that: the media is almost entirely owned by rich white guys. Not a hotbed of liberalism. Or even democrats.

Is that why MSNBC, CBS news, ABC news, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN etc, are all such great Republican news sources?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Is that why MSNBC, CBS news, ABC news, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN etc, are all such great Republican news sources?:rolleyes:

I'm happy you noticed!

When was the last time you saw an article on Ohio election irregularities? Seen a major paper say that Bush is a complete idiot? Seen a major network allow left-wing groups (say, moveon) to buy ad-time for political messages? Seen a major network allow the Republican controlled white house buy ad-time for political messages?

The last article you read on the subject of Nixon's "southern strategy", and it's analogy to modern day? The last bit of invesigative journalism detailing the political connections of the largest manufacturer of voting machines?

The right-wing bias in the mainstream media is well documented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Is that why MSNBC, CBS news, ABC news, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN etc, are all such great Republican news sources?:rolleyes:

The easiest and most dangerous thing in the world is to attack the free press.

Our press is far from perfect, they are driven to report what sells and try to create news to be more spectacular to sell. They do this regardless of party.

I do however find the press, even with their faults our greatest defense against tyranny.

However, lately we find BOTH parties crying the media is unfair and biased on the other side. Perhaps, it is because the press actually TRIES to be as objective as possible and the truth hurts. They attacked Clinton just as feverishly and as hard as they have Bush. But because one side is so brainwashed to believe that any press not supported by the 700 Club and Bush's white House is evil, they refuse to remember how every station, magazine and news show went after sources to find ways to show Clinton's demise.

As for editorials, Op Eds, talking heads like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Springer, Moore and so on.... they are airing their opinions and should be looked at as that. If they want to claim their opinion as fact, then allow them to show the evidence. If not then it's opinion and they lied..... BFD.

I find it horrific that we continually deride the press and attack them for not supporting our views and because they do not support what we believe then obviously they are puppets for the other side.

Beware the press that tells you the Kool Aid you are drinking is your favorite flavor, Jim Jones clones may lurk in the shadows.

I prefer a press that tells me to check before I drink the Kool Aid because someone may have pissed in it. I believe that is what the press's job is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's a technicality, and bullshit. As pointed out above to out an agent whether they are active or not puts lives at stake and is wrong for any reason.

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

Forget the partisan crap for a minute: What was the purpose in "outing" the agent? Why did they do that? I don't know if it was a crime or not but I would have erred on the side of caution. That's just common sense - why do that to a fellow American?

Also the CIA should be answering questions about this to clear the air once and for all about her status etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Interesting column. I didn't pay attention to the early stages of this thing and was taking too much for granted. Reading your link and some of the earlier AP stories tonight put the mess in a new light. It's one amazing horse race.

Sure seems like many people on the inside could have diffused this long ago. They must have been transferred to FEMA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

I don't see that you have anything that will withstand an argument, Lebell...

Quote:

(From the last paragraph of Toensing's column, linked above....)
.........The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.

A month after Toensing's column appeared in the Wapo, the DC Circuit appeals court issued it's ruling in the following case. Note that Judge Tatel was initially most reluctant to rule against Judith Miller, but Fitzgerald's evidence submissions (and "voluminous classified findings")must have convinced Judge Tatel to change his mind......

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...n_02_15_05.pdf
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 8, 2004 Decided February 15, 2005
Reissued April 4, 2005
No. 04-3138
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER

Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

From Judge Tatel (pages 70-72):

"An alleged covert agent, Plame evidently traveled overseas on clandestine missions beginning nearly two decades ago. See, e.g., Richard Leiby & Dana Priest, The Spy Next Door; Valerie Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, Wash. Post, Oct. 8, 2003, at A1. Her exposure, therefore, not only may have jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have endangered friends and associates from whom she might have gathered information in the past...

The leak of Plame’s apparent employment, moreover, had marginal news value. To be sure, insofar as Plame’s CIA relationship may have helped explain her husband’s selection for the Niger trip, that information could bear on her husband’s credibility and thus contribute to public debate over the president’s “sixteen words.” <b>Compared to the damage of undermining covert intelligence-gathering, however, this slight news value cannot, in my view, justify privileging the leaker’s identity...</b>

Just as due process poses no barrier to forcing an attorney to testify based on the court’s examination of evidence, unseen by the lawyer, that the client sought legal advice in pursuit of a crime, neither does it preclude compulsion of a reporter’s testimony based on a comparable review of evidence, likewise unseen by the reporter, that a source engaged in a harmful leak. In fact, appellants’ protests notwithstanding, ex parte review protects their interests, as it allows the government to present—and the court to demand—a far more extensive showing than would otherwise be possible given the need for grand jury secrecy discussed in the court’s opinion, see majority op. at 17-18. <b>That said, without benefit of the adversarial process, we must take care to ensure that the special counsel has met his burden of demonstrating that the information is both critical and unobtainable from any other source. Having carefully scrutinized his voluminous classified filings, I believe that he has.</b>

Judge Tatel (from page 81):

<b> "In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas. "</b>

Judge Tatel concluded (from pages 82-83):

"I conclude, as I began, with the tensions at work in this case. Here, two reporters and a news magazine, informants to the public, seek to keep a grand jury uninformed. Representing two equally fundamental principles—rule of law and free speech—the special counsel and the reporters both aim to facilitate fully informed and accurate decision-making by those they serve: the grand jury and the electorate. To this court falls the task of balancing the two sides’ concerns.

As James Madison explained, “[A] people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” See In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 The Writings of James Madison 103 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910)). Consistent with that maxim, “[a] free press is indispensable to the workings of our democratic society,” Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 28 (1945) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and because confidential sources are essential to the workings of the press—a practical reality that virtually all states and the federal government now acknowledge—I believe that “reason and experience” compel recognition of a privilege for reporters’ sources. That said, because “[l]iberty can only be exercised in a system of law which safeguards order,” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574 (1965), the privilege must give way to imperatives of law enforcement in exceptional cases.

<b>Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony. "</b>

In fairness to Toensing, the following was reported six months after she persuaded the WaPo to print her BS opinion piece. We'll document her track record as a partisan media whore "hack" in a followup post.

I have detailed the following before, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839331&postcount=15">here</a> on this forum. This is the political bomb shell case of your generation, folks. I'm disappointed that so much of what I've read here lately, has even been posted. Early on....when I sorted out where this was going....and this being a "poltical forum", I laid it out as best as I could. It's not too late to review my thread. I'd be interested to read opinions of what I've been wrong about......

There's been so much focus on format and on wording in thread "titles". This post and the one that follows will convince some of you that more curiousity about the material might have avoided Toensing's WaPo article being offered as substantative. It clearly isn't.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602069_pf.html
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

...........Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.............

<h4>Note that, even after the above article was published, Toensing is reported to frequently provide her opinion to the press that "no law was broken". Toensing has persisted with her PR message during WARTIME.</h4>

There has been much repub "spin" about Fitzgerald's investigative "mandate".

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510150001
...........With Plame leak investigation looking bad for Rove and others, old misinformation resurfaces

As the investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative again receives extensive media coverage, old misinformation about the investigation has flared up again.

Among the most common distortions is the claim -- advanced by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen and <b>Victoria Toensing (a close friend of syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak),</b> among others -- that the investigation is only about -- or should only be about -- whether anyone violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for someone to knowingly disclose the identity of an agent whose "intelligence relationship to the United States" is being actively concealed. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has a much broader mandate, as Media Matters has noted:

Fitzgerald's official delegation as special prosecutor, which was reprinted in a 2004 Government Accountability Office <a href="http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/302582.pdf#page=2">(GAO) decision paper</a>, did not limit his prosecutorial authority to any particular statute. Rather, it granted him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." ..............

In addition to reading the GAO decision paper linked in the preceding quote box, other illuminating pieces that describe Fitzgerald's mandate as akin to that of the Attorney General of the U.S. Unlike Special proscutor Ken Starr, Fitzgerald has authority to operate with autonomy. He does not need to get justice department authorization (permission) to serve warrants or to enlarge the scope of his investiagtion. As the Dec. 30, 2003 DOJ press conference where his appointment was announced, and the Feb. 2004 letter that is on display at Fitzgerald's new website, make abundantly clear, Toensing and other repub "spinners" are wrong when they attempt to narrow Fitzgerald's "original" mandate.....he had an open authoraization to take his investigation to anywhere that he deemed it might lead:

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...ry_06_2004.pdf
February 6, 2004
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.

Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General

Quote:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...doj-pconf.html
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO OVERSEE INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED LEAK OF CIA AGENT IDENTITY AND RECUSAL OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT FROM THE INVESTIGATION

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES COMEY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER RAY
DECEMBER 30, 2003

MR. COMEY: Good afternoon, folks..........

......I have today delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all the approval authorities that will be necessary to ensure that he has the tools to conduct a completely independent investigation; that is, that he has the power and authority to make whatever prosecutive judgments he believes are appropriate, without having to come back to me or anybody else at the Justice Department for approvals. Mr. Fitzgerald alone will decide how to staff this matter, how to continue the investigation and what prosecutive decisions to make. I expect that he will only consult with me or with Assistant Attorney General Ray, should he need additional resources or support.......

......Q: You mentioned that the -- you felt that Fitzgerald will have a broader -- actually a broader mandate, broader abilities than an outside counsel. Can you expand on that a little bit? In what respect will he have a --

MR. COMEY: Yes. An outside counsel has a -- the regulations prescribe a number of ways in which they're very similar to a U.S. attorney. For example, they have to follow all Department of Justice policies regarding approvals. So that means if they want to subpoena a member of the media, if they want to grant immunity, if they want to subpoena a lawyer -- all the things that we as U.S. attorneys have to get approval for, an outside counsel has to come back to the Department of Justice. An outside counsel also only gets the jurisdiction that is assigned to him and no other. The regulations provide that if he or she wants to expand that jurisdiction, they have to come back to the attorney general and get permission.

Fitzgerald has been told, as I said to you: Follow the facts; do the right thing. He can pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it.

An outside counsel, according to the regulations, has to alert the attorney general to any significant event in the case; file what's called an "urgent report." And what that means is just as U.S. attorneys have to do that, he would have to tell the attorney general before he brought charges against anybody, before maybe a significant media event, things like that. Fitzgerald does not have to do that; he does not have to come back to me for anything. I mean, he can if he wants to, but I've told him, our instructions are: You have this authority; I've delegated to you all the approval authority that I as attorney general have. You can exercise it as you see fit.

And a U.S. attorney or a normal outside counsel would have to go through the approval process to get permission to appeal something. Fitzgerald would not because of the broad grant of authority I've given him.

So, in short, I have essentially given him -- not essentially -- I have given him all the approval authorities that rest -- that are inherent in the attorney general; something that does not happen with an outside special counsel......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

1.)The Victoria Toensing Jan. 2005 "column" that you cite at the WaPo link is an "op ed", i.e., an "opinion" piece. It is not to be confused with news reporting by that newspaper or by other news or news wire services.

2.)There is nothing credible about Toensing or her husband. They are (if you call 300 TV appearances in a short period, extreme....) partisan to the extreme, and difficult to imagine as anything other than obsessive, self promoters.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm
The Power Couple at Scandal's Vortex

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 1998; Page D1 .................

...........A classic Washington power couple, diGenova, 53, and Toensing, 56, occupy a strange, symbiotic nexus between the media and the law that boosts their stock in both worlds. They are clearly players, which gives them access to juicy information, which gets them on television, which generates legal business.

"Dozens of Washington lawyers are trying to get on these shows," diGenova says. "I think it's very healthy. We can destroy myths and shoot down misunderstandings." Toensing sees televised debate as a good way of sharpening the old legal skills. "It's something that gets the body juices going," she says.

<b>The two law partners not only talk about the Monica Lewinsky investigation -- they've been quoted or on the tube more than 300 times in the month since the story broke</b> -- but have been drawn into the vortex. Toensing was approached by an intermediary for a Secret Service agent who had supposedly seen something untoward involving President Clinton and the former intern. DiGenova was at the heart of a quickly retracted Dallas Morning News account of that matter. What's more, diGenova took to the airwaves Sunday to charge -- based on nothing more than one reporter's inquiry -- that private investigators "with links to the White House" were digging up "dirt" on him and his wife.

Never exactly press-shy when he was U.S. attorney, diGenova is a trifle sensitive to the notion that he is a partisan publicity hound. Ensconced in a burgundy armchair in the living room of his ranch-style home in Bethesda's Kenwood section, he glances stealthily at a blue card -- the kind TV people use to jot down their sound bites -- before delivering his point.

"I have never made a single telephone call to get on a television show, and neither has Victoria," he says. "We've never had an agent. . . . I've never been paid a dime for any of it."................

............A Wide Net

Name a high-profile investigation in this city and chances are the prosecutorial pair is involved.

Charges that Republican Rep. Dan Burton improperly demanded campaign contributions from a lobbyist for Pakistan? DiGenova and Toensing are the Indiana congressman's personal attorneys.

Newt Gingrich's ethics problems? Toensing represents the speaker's wife, Marianne, to ensure her compliance with House ethics rules.

A House committee investigation of the Teamsters and the union's links to improper Democratic fund-raising? DiGenova and Toensing are leading the probe as outside counsel.

(And don't shortchange Toensing's role. When the newspaper Roll Call ran an unflattering piece about conflict-of-interest charges related to the couple's hiring, Toensing denounced the reporter as a sexist for leaving her out of the first few paragraphs. "I'm just as big as he is!" she shouted at an editor. Toensing says now that "they pretended I didn't quite exist. They attributed my client to Joe. I've had to deal with this all my life as a woman.")

The couple's Teamsters probe for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has made them a lightning rod for Democratic criticism. First there was grumbling that their official role would conflict with their work for other clients, such as the American Hospital Association, for whom they are registered lobbyists. Then the Democrats charged that diGenova and Toensing couldn't be doing much on their $300,000-a-year contract -- which requires each lawyer to put in 80 hours a month -- since they spent so much time in television studios trashing President Clinton in the Lewinsky case.

Their television advocacy is hardly a state secret. <h4>As former prosecutors, both diGenova and Toensing have largely defended the aggressive tactics of independent counsel Kenneth Starr and repeatedly challenged the president's veracity.</h4>

"They've become a public spectacle, which means they can't be impartial" in the Teamsters probe, says Missouri Rep. William Clay, the committee's ranking Democrat. "It's a payoff from Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party to both Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova. . . . They have been on television over 200 times and not once have they been talking about an issue we're paying them $25,000 a month to handle for the Congress. It's a hell of a part-time job."............

3.) Heavens, no !!! The following portrays Toensing, when compared to the bold quote above.....as a...."flip-flopper" !

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2304
.....Though both diGenova and Toensing are Republicans who are hostile to Clinton and supportive of Kenneth Starr, they usually argue against the independent-counsel law in general......

4.)Victoria Toensing is on record as having a curious contempt for the law. What else could explain authorship of a "law", intended to safeguard national security, that is described by said "author" as:

Quote:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Corrupti...veCIALeak.html
"We made it exceedingly difficult to violate," Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee when the law was enacted, said of the law........

.............Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

But....what would one expect a close friend of Robert Novak, and an openly partisan republican like Toensing, to say, if not the quotes above? She is not in the habit of disclosing her friendship with Novak as she interjects her "opinion" in this matter, everywhere that she is able to.....
4.)Toensing did not disclose in the Jan. 2005 WaPo op-ed column, where she makes a point of defending her friend, Robert Novak, that she is his friend. Toensing has appeared on TV frequently since, and is documented as failing to disclose her relationship with Novak. This seems misleading and unethical.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005
Press sightings of social interactions between Toensing, her husband, Joseph E. diGenova, and Novak abound:

* An October 1, 2004, <a href="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/01/novak/index_np.html">article on Salon.com</a> reported that Novak was a guest along with Toensing and diGenova at a September 21, 2004, party in Washington to celebrate the success of the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, 2004).
* According to an October 17, 2001, "Reliable Source" column in The Washington Post, Novak was among "70 friends" hosted by diGenova to celebrate Toensing's 60th birthday at the Palm restaurant.
* A February 27, 1998, profile of Toensing and diGenova in The Washington Post reported that "[t]he couple retreat on weekends to their Fenwick Island, Del., beach house, hanging with such pals as Robert Novak and Bill Regardie." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm

Novak has also defended or praised his friends Toensing and diGenova on at least three occasions in his nationally syndicated column:

* "DiGenova, a conservative Republican, would introduce something new at the IRB [Teamsters union Internal Review Board]. He might recommend that it is time to end the monitoring that has cost the union more than $75 million. [Federal prosecutor Mary Jo] White did her best to obstruct the 1998 congressional investigation of the Teamsters conducted by diGenova and his law partner-wife, Victoria Toensing. Nor is diGenova an admirer of Mary Jo White's glacial pursuit of the pre-Hoffa conspiracy between the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and the Democratic National Committee as the statute of limitations is about to block further prosecution." <a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2001/08/01/165366.html">[8/1/2001]</a>

5.)The Toensing op-ed column is riddled with inaccuracies:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005

"Despite Toensing and Sanford's claim that Wilson was "credentially challenged" for Niger mission, Wilson had both <a href="http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html">diplomatic credentials</a> as well as past experience investigating sales of Nigerian uranium. USA Today reported that "Wilson had been an ambassador to Gabon and was posted to Niger earlier in his career [with the U.S. Diplomatic Service, from 1976-1978]. In 1999, he had gone to Niger to gather information about rumors of uranium sales to Iraq." Indeed, Wilson has <a href="http://www.leadingauthorities.com/4881/Joseph_Wilson.htm">specialized in Africa</a> for the majority of his diplomatic career, which includes service in Niger, Togo, Burundi, and South Africa, as well as ambassadorships to the Gabonese Republic and to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe. Wilson was also senior director for African affairs at the National Security Council under former President Clinton and also served as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991.

Toensing and Sanford also asserted that Wilson was sent in 2002 "to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger." In addition to ignoring Wilson's previous diplomatic experience in Niger and experience investigating the sale of Niger uranium, their assertion also misstated his mission: He did not go to Niger to determine "whether Iraq was interested," but rather whether Iraq actually purchased or attempted to purchase uranium. According to a July 7, 2003, New York Times <a href="http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/White%20House%20Admits%20False%20Data.html">article,</a> Wilson "was sent to Niger, in West Africa, last year to investigate reports of the attempted purchase [of Nigerian uranium by Iraq]."

The Washington Post identified Toensing as "chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration." Sanford was identified as "a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues."

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510240007
USA Today again relied only on Toensing to suggest that outing Plame was not a crime

In an October 21 article, USA Today reporters Judy Keen and Mark Memmott relied exclusively on a reading of the law by Republican operative Victoria Toensing in presenting the question of whether senior White House officials may have committed a crime by outing CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The article marked at least the second time that Memmott cited Toensing -- without offering a contrary legal perspective -- in reporting that leaking Plame's identity likely wasn't a crime. Toensing has made frequent media appearances in defense of the Bush administration and the alleged leakers, but she is not the only voice on this issue. Former Nixon White House counsel John W. Dean III argued in 2003 that leaking Plame's identity might constitute a violation of the 1917 Espionage Act and, more recently, that it could also violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, which addresses the theft of information and, Dean wrote, contains "broad language [that] covers leaks" and "has now been used to cover just such actions."

USA Today did not mention that Toensing is a partisan Republican or that she is a personal friend of syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.

Lebell, in view of your decision to post links to the Toensing article on two threads, and your response and decision regarding my earlier Rove-Plamegate thread, made at a time when you admitted little knowledge of what was going on at TFP, I have to ask you if you have some kind of agenda, intending to steer our members away from more reliable information about "Plamegate"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

This is the condensed version?

Truth is, I've been blissfully without news for over 2 weeks and don't even know what the current issue is.

But I can see that we are duplicating threads.

Merged.

Lebell,

I hope you noticed the bio of the person who wrote that column:

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues.

Ya think she might be a bit biased? At any rate, that was not a news report, it was an opinion piece with as much weight as any opinion piece. It is not a report from a reporter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Lebell,

Ya think she might be a bit biased? At any rate, that was not a news report, it was an opinion piece with as much weight as any opinion piece. It is not a report from a reporter.

You're pretty naive if you think because someone is a "reporter" they don't have an agenda and everything they print is fact, checked twice over. Reports from reporters are littered with biases, omissions, and sometimes straight-out lies. At least with an opinion piece its labeled as such. Not so for the front page of the NYT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

And no where did I say that I think reporters don't show bias. Look at Fox News.

As for the straight out lies, I'm sure there are bad reporters just like there are bad cops. They shouldn't exist.

I have worked as a reporter and manage reporters and know bunches of them. Most of them bend over backwards to be balanced.

But that piece had no FACTS, just OPINIONS and was posted as a refute to facts.

All of which leads the thread awry and doens't address the topic the leak came from Cheney's staff. It was about a formerly covert agent. Her husband saidgain today that it put her in jeopardy. Rove lied and said he heard the news from the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

Thank you Lebell.

That editorial does not assert that Plame was not assigned overseas. The best it asserts is that she was working in the US for "some time". It doesn't deal with the fact that there is apparently a large volume of classified information presented to a judge who became convinced, based off this evidence, that journalistic privledge should be revoked in the national interest.

It doesn't mention that the CIA agent Novak talked to repeatedly told Novak not to reveal Plame's status as a CIA operative. Instead it brushes against this and mentions far less important quotes from the discussion... It doesn't mention that Plame was working for a CIA shell company (not the CIA), and her employment with the CIA at Langly was a secret. In fact, it uses "at Langly" as if this implies she was openly working for the CIA...

In effect, the piece looks like an advocacy piece, not an attempt to uncover the truth of the matter. The political credentials (high former official in a republican white house) provide cooroborative evidence.

I must therefore assume that it is written in an adversarial context, and that any ommissions and wholes in her arguement are intentionally left out are not accidental but rather rhetorical dishonesty. The history of expertise of Victoria means that it isn't reasonable to assume she just accidentally missed important and pertinant facts that happen to be less than supporting of her arguement.

So, in conclusion, Victoria isn't making an honest arguement. There is ample evidence of lies by ommission. So citing her as an authority, or assuming without independant proof, any fact she espouses is not reasonable.