Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."

That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.

But, she didn't send him. She offered his name up and the decision was made elsewhere.

Even then, it has NOTHING to do with the investigation by Fitzgerald. Leaking information or committing perjury by White House officials is the subject.

Actually it has quite a lot to do with the investigation. It goes to motivation for Rove to comment on Plame in the first place. I doubt Fitzgerald has overlooked that fact.

The only motivation Rove had was to save face for the lying administration and to smear Wilson to accomplish that goal.

Wilson attempted his own smear and did it poorly. Once the truth came out even Kerry dropped him like a hot potato because the former "hero" was a liability.

 

[conjur]

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
NYTimes front page / For Two Aides in Leak Case, 2nd Issue Rises
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/polit...770e9392bb1c6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

From that first link:

Mr. Rove has also told the grand jury that he never saw the memorandum, a person briefed on the case said. Democrats who have been eager to focus attention on the case have urged reporters to look into the role of several other administration officials, including John R. Bolton, who was then under secretary of state for arms control and international security and has since been nominated by Mr. Bush to be ambassador to the United Nations.

In his disclosure form for his confirmation hearings, Mr. Bolton made no mention of being interviewed in the case, a government official said. In the week after Mr. Wilson's article appeared, Mr. Bolton attended a conference in Australia.

Hmmm...

What's this?

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 21
Read the transcript to the Thursday show
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8666472/

DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A witness who testified at the grand jury and lawyers for other witnesses say the memo was written in July of 2003, identified Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, as a CIA officer, and cited her in a paragraph marked S for sensitive.

According to lawyers, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and undersecretaries, including John Bolton, gave testimony about this memo. And a lawyer for one State Department official says his client testified that, as President Bush was flying to Africa on Air Force One two years ago, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer could be seen reading the document on board.

The timing is significant, because the president's trip on July 7 was one day after Ambassador Joe Wilson's column was published criticizing the administration. In other words, on July 6, Wilson's column comes out. On July 7, the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. And, on July 8, Karl Rove had a conversation with columnist Robert Novak, but says it was Novak who told him about Valerie Plame, not the other way around.

Interesting...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

 

[Harvey]

Hey, TLC -- What's next? Are you now going to try to convince us that Kerry leaked Valerie Plame's ID? :roll: :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

You going to bring up your NRO and WSJ Op/Ed links again? :roll:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Wait...if that is true....than that would mean that Bush administration officials are lying. That can't be true. This man and the people around him have been appointed and annointed by God. They can do no wrong.

Can you say Perjury AND Obstruction of Justice boys and Chickens?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

You going to bring up your NRO and WSJ Op/Ed links again? :roll:

Right after you trot out another post from DailyKOS. :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Ex-CIA Officers Rip Bush Over Rove Leak
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/...LATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-22-15-22-38

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

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

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief - protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine. Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

In July 2003, Robert Novak, citing unnamed administration officials, identified Plame by name in his syndicated column and wrote that she worked for the CIA. The column has led to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. New York Times reporter Judith Miller - who never wrote a story about Plame - has been jailed for refusing to testify.

Bush said last week, "I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well."

Dana Perino, a White House spokesman, said Friday that the administration would have no comment on the investigation while it was continuing.

Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel and defense intelligence officer, said Bush's silence sends a bad signal to foreigners who might be thinking of cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence matters.

"This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," Lang said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."

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

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

 

[conjur]

Plamegate timeline
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764919

 

[BDawg]

Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters'

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

You going to bring up your NRO and WSJ Op/Ed links again? :roll:

Nothing that reputable, I'm afraid. That New York Post tabloid op-ed was penned by Deborah Orin, career Republican mouthpiece and devoted Kerry-basher. It's no longer on the New York Post web site, but it is still on Free Republic. Might have something to do with why Chicken didn't include a link.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...

:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.

She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.

On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here, let me demonstrate how one posts links to substantiate their claim. It's a process you should learn:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

That was on July 14, 2003. Yet on May 6, 2003, a full two months prior, we get:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted ? except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Wilson leaked information that was still classified to Kristof.

I'll give you credit for finally -- finally -- trying to support your story with evidence. If you have a point in there, however, I'm missing it. I believe I've already acknowledged that the CIA report was classified, but Wilson did not leak the report. He told us about certain aspects of his trip to Niger. In order for your claim to be true, you need to show Wilson revealed information he was forbidden to discuss. Given that he did NOT sign a confidentiality agreement for the trip (per the Senate SCI report), I think that will be a bit of a challenge. If you have evidence showing otherwise, please share.

First of all, the confidentiality agreement statement in the SCI report concerns Wilson's "relationship" with the CIA, not the information he gathered.

Not so, it was more than that:

• "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.

Did not ask Wilson to keep his relationship with the CIA confidential and did not ask him to sign an NDA.

As the SCI report also notes, Wilson did not have a formal security clearance but was given an operational clearance for the purpose of his trip to Niger. Receiving such a clearance requires signing a general NDA that prevents one from discussin classified information they come to know, so he was still governed by one concerning the release of classified information.

Speculative. No matter what the normal procedure may be, you do not know Wilson signed an NDA. In fact, the SSCI report clearly contradicts your speculation, explicitly stating he did not. Perhaps that is why the SSCI felt this was important enough to mention in their report, that it was a departure from normal procedure.

Second of all, did he release any classified information? He made specific comments about his findings. Is it really a stretch to believe those findings were classified, considering that's what the classified report was about, his findings?

Yes, it's very much a stretch. While we don't know for sure everything covered in the classified report, it is safe to assume it included more than Wilson's findings. For example, it almost certainly included the CIA's analysis of his findings, probably cross-referenced with related intel from other sources. Further, as I explained before, the fact that some of Wilson's specific findings might be considered classified does NOT suggest everything he found was classified. For example, Wilson's (hypothetical) meeting with covert sources would be classified, while his meetings with public sources might not be. In short, classified reports contain all kinds of unclassified information. We see this all the time when the government releases redacted documents, e.g., the SSCI report.

btw, there was some noise about investigating whether Wilson leaked classified information himself by Long Island Rep Peter King. But the MSM disregarded it completely and so did the CIA.

Interesting. Any links to more information? I'm curious as to the specific classified information he thought Wilson leaked, and why neither he nor the CIA pursued it. Perhaps it was due to the lack of an NDA binding Wilson to silence.

 

[Gaard]

Waxman: 11 Security Breaches in Plame Case

The disclosure of the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak has triggered a criminal investigation and led to calls for congressional investigations. The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. A new fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman documents that there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

New Fact Sheet Details Multiple Administration Security Breaches Involving Valerie Plame Wilson

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. This disclosure of classified information has triggered a criminal investigation by a Special Counsel and led to calls for congressional investigations.

The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. As this fact sheet documents, there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

Under Executive Order 12958, the White House is required to investigate any reports of security breaches and take "prompt corrective action," such as suspending the security clearances of those involved. Unlike prosecutions for criminal violations, which require "knowing" and "intentional" disclosures, the executive order covers a wider range of unauthorized breaches, including the "negligent" release of classified information. There is no evidence that the White House has complied with its obligation to investigate any of the 11 reported instances of security breaches relating to Ms. Wilson or to apply administrative sanctions to those involved.

The Disclosures of Valerie Wilson's Identity

1. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to Columnist Robert Novak
In a column dated July 14, 2003, Robert Novak first reported that Valerie Plame Wilson was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." [1] Mr. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. [2] According to multiple news reports, one of these two sources was Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor. [3] During a phone call on July 8, 2003, Mr. Rove confirmed for Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. During this conversation, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson "by her maiden name, Valerie Plame," and said he had heard she was involved in "the circumstances in which her husband ? traveled to Africa." [4] Mr. Rove responded, "I heard that, too." [5] Mr. Novak's name also appeared "on a White House call log as having telephoned Mr. Rove in the week before the publication of the July 2003 column." [6]

2. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Columnist Robert Novak
In addition to his communications with Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak learned about Ms. Wilson's identity through communications with a second "senior administration official." [7] Mr. Novak's second source has not yet been publicly identified. Mr. Novak has stated, however, that the source provided him with Ms. Wilson's identity. As he stated: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me." [8] He added: "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." [9]

3. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 11, 2003, Mr. Rove revealed to TIME reporter Matt Cooper that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction. [10] Mr. Cooper reported that this "was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife." [11] Mr. Rove provided this information on "deep background," said that "things would be declassified soon," and stated, "I've already said too much." [12]

4. The Disclosure by Scooter Libby to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 12, 2003, TIME reporter Matt Cooper asked the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger." [13] Mr. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. [14] Mr. Libby provided this information "on background." [15]

5. The Disclosure by an "Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporter Walter Pincus
On July 12, 2003, an "administration official" told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that "Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife."[16] Mr. Pincus has not publicly identified his source, but has stated that it "was not Libby."[17]

6. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." [18] According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." [19] Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell. [20]

7. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." [21] According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." [22] Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert. [23]

8. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." [24] According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." [25] Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews. [26]

9. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to Wall Street Journal Reporter David Cloud
On October 17, 2003, Wall Street Journal reporter David Cloud reported that an internal State Department memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel "details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger." [27] This "classified" document had "limited circulation," according to "two people familiar with the memo." [28]

10. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to James Guckert of Talon News
On October 28, 2003, Talon News posted on its website an interview with Ambassador Joseph Wilson in which the questioner asked: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency or clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?" [29] Talon News is tied to a group called GOP USA [30] and is operated by Texas Republican Robert Eberle. [31] Its only reporter, James Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon), resigned when it was revealed that he gained access to the White House using a false name after his press credentials were rejected by House and Senate press galleries. [32] In a March 2004 interview with his own news service, Mr. Guckert stated that the classified document was "easily accessible." [33] In a February 11, 2005, interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Mr. Guckert said the FBI interviewed him about "how I knew or received a copy of a confidential CIA memo," but he refused to answer FBI questions because of his status as a "journalist." [34] A week later, Mr. Guckert changed his account, claiming he "was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else." [35]

11. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
On December 26, 2003, Washington Post reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank reported on details about the classified State Department memo, writing that it was authored by "a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research." [36] The Post story was attributed to "a senior administration official who has seen" the memo. [37] The Post also reported that the CIA was "angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets" and that the CIA "believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame." [38]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
[1] Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
[2] Id.
[3] Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer, New York Times (July 15, 2005). See also Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
[7] Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
[8] Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover, Newsday (July 22, 2003).
[9] Id.
[10] Matt Cooper, What I Told the Grand Jury, TIME (July 25, 2005).
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] The When and How of Leak Being Probed, Washington Post (Nov. 26, 2004).
[17] Id.
[18] Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
[19] Id.
[20] Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (stating that she "heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story").
[21] Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
[22] Id.
[23] Reporter Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case, Washington Post (Aug. 10, 2004) (describing a July 2003 telephone conversation between Mr. Russert and Mr. Libby).
[24] Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
[25] Id.
[26] Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (reportedly stating to Mr. Wilson, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game").
[27] Memo May Aid Leak Probe, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 17, 2003).
[28] Id.
[29] Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003). See also Senate Intel Report Discredits Wilson's Claims About Iraq, Niger, Talon News (July 13, 2004) (confirming that Talon reported on the memo in October 2003).
[30] Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
[31] Democrats Want Investigation of Reporter Using Fake Name, New York Times (Feb. 11, 2005).
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Rumsfeld Visits Iraq, CNN (Feb. 11, 2005).
[35] Anderson Cooper 360, CNN (Feb. 18, 2005). See also Web Site Owner Says He Knew of Reporter's 2 Identities, New York Times (Feb. 20, 2005) (claiming that referring to the memo as though he had it was "merely an interview technique").
[36] Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
[37] Id.
[38] Id.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeppers- Federal prosecutors and the FBI get kinda touchy when you don't tell them the truth- ask Martha Stewart...

Probably a difficult concept to grasp for folks who are accustomed to casting deception, then believing their own lies, too...

I expect Fitzgerald will hold out until the last possible date to announce his findings- he really wants Miller's testimony, and the only way he has to get it is to keep her in jail as long as possible... With sufficient evidence, the judge might just extend the grand jury's mandate past the october deadline...

 

[BBond]

Hey chicken. You'd better go on a quicky nutra slim diet for a while. You'll need to make room for all the crow you'll be eating soon.

You wouldn't want to spoil your chickenish figure.

 

[BBond]

There is so much more to this but even if Fitzgerald goes for these lesser charges it will be so enjoyable watching these traitors as they are hoisted by their own petard.

Or is there a special rule for Bushies regarding perjury as well as treason?

Whatever, Bush needs to start acting like a president instead of a Rove lackey and fire these scum immediately. What does Rove have on Bush to keep his head off of the chopping block with all of the mounting pressure and indictments surely coming?

I hope they publish a book on Fitzgerald's investigation. Unredacted. Maybe reading about the slimy details and dirty tricks that are the Bush White House would wake this country up.

CIA Leak Investigation Turns to Possible Perjury, Obstruction

By Douglas Frantz, Sonni Efron and Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON ? The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from determining whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status.

Differences have arisen in witnesses' statements to federal agents and a grand jury about how the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, was leaked to the press two years ago.

According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials.

Although no one has suggested that the investigation into who leaked Plame's name has been shelved, the intensity of the inquiry into possible perjury charges has increased, according to one lawyer familiar with events who spoke on condition that he not be identified.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, and his team have made no decision on whether to seek indictments.

The investigation focused initially on whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a campaign to discredit Wilson after he wrote an op-ed article in the New York Times criticizing the Bush administration's grounds for going to war in Iraq.

The sources said prosecutors were comparing the various statements to the FBI and the grand jury by Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political strategist. In Rove's first interview with the FBI, he did not mention a telephone conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, according to lawyers involved in the case. Cooper has since said that he called Rove specifically to discuss the matter.

Rove has been interviewed twice by the FBI and has made three appearances before the grand jury, according to lawyers familiar with the case.

Rove was told by prosecutors in October that he was not a target of the inquiry, said his lawyer, Robert Luskin. Rove, through his lawyer, has denied being the source of Plame's name.

"I am quite sure that if his status has changed, I would be informed about it," Luskin said Friday. "I am not aware of anything that has come to light that would change the facts in front of the prosecutor that would change that assurance."

Rove "has, from the beginning, been candid, forthcoming and accurate," Luskin said. "There has never been any moment when the government, prosecutors or investigators have suggested that they thought he was being anything but truthful or cooperative."

The investigation's change in emphasis comes amid indications that Fitzgerald's inquiry has gone beyond the White House and scrutiny of officials such as Rove and Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

A former senior State Department official has acknowledged that he testified before the grand jury in Washington, and a congressional source confirmed that Robert Joseph ? who worked on the White House National Security Council ? told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had been questioned by the special prosecutor. Karen P. Hughes, a former top aide to Bush, also told the committee that she had been questioned, the source said.

In addition, a senior U.S. official said that several State Department officials ? including then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ? were questioned months ago about the creation and distribution of a classified memo that mentioned Plame. Prosecutors are interested in the memo because it may have been a vehicle for spreading Plame's name among administration staff members.

Disclosing the identity of a CIA undercover agent is a crime under some circumstances, but legal experts have said that elements of the law make it difficult to prove a violation. Prosecutors could have an easier time winning a conviction under another law that makes it a crime for officials with security clearances to disseminate certain information. According to that statute, it could be a crime to have confirmed that Plame was a CIA agent if she was operating undercover.

Plame was first identified as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in an article that appeared July 14, 2003 ? eight days after Wilson's op-ed piece challenged administration claims that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium for its nuclear program from the African nation of Niger.

An official close to the investigation said Fitzgerald was concentrating on what happened in the White House and other parts of the administration in those eight days.

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that Rove and Libby were intensely focused on discrediting Wilson during that period. Prosecutors have been told that although lower-level aides routinely handled media inquiries, Rove and Libby began communicating directly with reporters about Wilson, the Times report said.

The CIA requested the inquiry into Plame's unmasking. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed a special prosecutor in December 2003 and was given wide latitude to conduct his investigation. He is working with FBI agents, a team of attorneys from the Justice Department in Washington and four prosecutors from his Chicago office.

The investigation has led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times, found in civil contempt for refusing to reveal her sources in inquiring about the Plame case; she did not publish any stories on the matter. Other reporters have testified before the grand jury about conversations with sources after receiving waivers of confidentiality from their sources.

Fitzgerald has asked witnesses not to discuss their grand jury testimony, but the law does not prohibit them from speaking publicly.

Rove and Libby spoke with reporters during the crucial eight-day period when the administration was working to undermine Wilson's credibility, in part by suggesting that his wife had put his name forward for the fact-finding mission to Niger in early 2002. His assignment was to determine the authenticity of claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from that country for its nuclear program.

Wilson later wrote in the op-ed piece that the claims were likely false and that intelligence cited by the Bush administration to support the invasion of Iraq "was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

According to Luskin, Rove has said that he learned Plame's name from Novak. Novak has refused to discuss his testimony, but investigators are believed to be focusing on possible variations with Novak's account.

Writing in Time magazine, Cooper said that he had telephoned Rove to ask about Wilson's column. But Rove, according to lawyers involved in the case, told the grand jury that Cooper had telephoned him about a welfare issue and that Wilson came up later.

Cooper wrote that Rove had disclosed to him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though Rove did not use her name. Cooper said that he did not learn Plame's name until he read it in the Novak column several days later, or that he might have learned it from a computer search.

Libby, according to a person familiar with events, told investigators that he learned Plame's name from a reporter, apparently Tim Russert of NBC-TV.

But Russert, who spoke with Fitzgerald last summer after Libby released him from a pledge of confidentiality, said he did not give Plame's name to Libby, according to a statement issued by NBC at the time.

Cooper wrote in Time that he had also talked to Libby. He said he asked Libby whether he had heard anything about Wilson's wife dispatching Wilson to Niger, and that Libby replied, " 'Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Fitzgerald's term as special prosecutor expires in October, but it could be renewed if the investigation is not finished.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeppers- Federal prosecutors and the FBI get kinda touchy when you don't tell them the truth- ask Martha Stewart...

Probably a difficult concept to grasp for folks who are accustomed to casting deception, then believing their own lies, too...

I expect Fitzgerald will hold out until the last possible date to announce his findings- he really wants Miller's testimony, and the only way he has to get it is to keep her in jail as long as possible... With sufficient evidence, the judge might just extend the grand jury's mandate past the october deadline...

Folks actually believe that there will be hangings of these Republicans???

Not going to happen. It would've happened by now.

They will not allow any harm to their own unlike the Dems.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

You going to bring up your NRO and WSJ Op/Ed links again? :roll:

Nothing that reputable, I'm afraid. That New York Post tabloid op-ed was penned by Deborah Orin, career Republican mouthpiece and devoted Kerry-basher. It's no longer on the New York Post web site, but it is still on Free Republic. Might have something to do with why Chicken didn't include a link.

Actually, I got it from here:

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/07/joe_wilson_stil.html

But nice ASSumption.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...

:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.

She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.

On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."

She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here, let me demonstrate how one posts links to substantiate their claim. It's a process you should learn:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

That was on July 14, 2003. Yet on May 6, 2003, a full two months prior, we get:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted ? except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Wilson leaked information that was still classified to Kristof.

I'll give you credit for finally -- finally -- trying to support your story with evidence. If you have a point in there, however, I'm missing it. I believe I've already acknowledged that the CIA report was classified, but Wilson did not leak the report. He told us about certain aspects of his trip to Niger. In order for your claim to be true, you need to show Wilson revealed information he was forbidden to discuss. Given that he did NOT sign a confidentiality agreement for the trip (per the Senate SCI report), I think that will be a bit of a challenge. If you have evidence showing otherwise, please share.

First of all, the confidentiality agreement statement in the SCI report concerns Wilson's "relationship" with the CIA, not the information he gathered.

Not so, it was more than that:

• "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.

Did not ask Wilson to keep his relationship with the CIA confidential and did not ask him to sign an NDA.

What is the context of that statement? It concerns Wilson's involvement with the CIA. How do you make the giant leap from that context to the assumption that not signing an NDA means Wilson could talk about anything concerning his trip?

As the SCI report also notes, Wilson did not have a formal security clearance but was given an operational clearance for the purpose of his trip to Niger. Receiving such a clearance requires signing a general NDA that prevents one from discussin classified information they come to know, so he was still governed by one concerning the release of classified information.

Speculative. No matter what the normal procedure may be, you do not know Wilson signed an NDA. In fact, the SSCI report clearly contradicts your speculation, explicitly stating he did not.

You HAVE to sign an NDA to get a security clearance. There is no speculation on that point. I went through it myself in the military when I had to have a security clearance. You do not get a security clearance AND the freedom to discuss the classified information you encounter. How could you even make sucha ridiculous claim?

Perhaps that is why the SSCI felt this was important enough to mention in their report, that it was a departure from normal procedure.

Now THAT'S speculation.

Second of all, did he release any classified information? He made specific comments about his findings. Is it really a stretch to believe those findings were classified, considering that's what the classified report was about, his findings?

Yes, it's very much a stretch. While we don't know for sure everything covered in the classified report, it is safe to assume it included more than Wilson's findings. For example, it almost certainly included the CIA's analysis of his findings, probably cross-referenced with related intel from other sources. Further, as I explained before, the fact that some of Wilson's specific findings might be considered classified does NOT suggest everything he found was classified. For example, Wilson's (hypothetical) meeting with covert sources would be classified, while his meetings with public sources might not be. In short, classified reports contain all kinds of unclassified information. We see this all the time when the government releases redacted documents, e.g., the SSCI report.

You are confused. We see that all the time because the government declassifies those portions of a report when they release it publicly. Wilson's CIA report still hasn't been declassified, therefore its entire contents are still secret. He is not allowed to speak of anything within that report, period.

btw, there was some noise about investigating whether Wilson leaked classified information himself by Long Island Rep Peter King. But the MSM disregarded it completely and so did the CIA.

Interesting. Any links to more information? I'm curious as to the specific classified information he thought Wilson leaked, and why neither he nor the CIA pursued it. Perhaps it was due to the lack of an NDA binding Wilson to silence.

Or perhaps the CIA didn't feel like opening that can-o-worms?

As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
Hey chicken. You'd better go on a quicky nutra slim diet for a while. You'll need to make room for all the crow you'll be eating soon.

You wouldn't want to spoil your chickenish figure.

I'll tuck this little nugget of premature e-speculation on your part away, just in case BBond.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Hey chicken. You'd better go on a quicky nutra slim diet for a while. You'll need to make room for all the crow you'll be eating soon.

You wouldn't want to spoil your chickenish figure.

I'll tuck this little nugget of premature e-speculation on your part away, just in case BBond.

Don't tuck it away very far. You'll be needing it soon.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!

There goes Chicken again with his baseless claims. I love it!

Oh, that's right. The Kerry campaign denied dropping Wilson, didn't they? At least, here's what the NY Post said about it:

July 29, 2004 -- DEMOCRAT John Kerry's campaign yesterday gave a ringing endorsement to Bush-bashing Ambassador Joe Wilson ? even though a bipartisan Senate committee just found so many holes in his story that even his own wife won't back it up.

Wilson claimed President Bush lied about whether Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Wilson knew it because the CIA sent him there. The Senate report says, if anything, the truth is the opposite of what Wilson claimed.

But that doesn't seems to bother the Kerryites, who yesterday hailed Wilson's "integrity" and said he's still very much a part of the team that Kerry hopes will make him commander in chief. "Joe Wilson has served for many months as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign and continues to do so," said Kerry foreign policy adviser Susan Rice.

LOL

Did Kerry bring ol' Sandy "Gold Toe" Berger back too?

You going to bring up your NRO and WSJ Op/Ed links again? :roll:

Nothing that reputable, I'm afraid. That New York Post tabloid op-ed was penned by Deborah Orin, career Republican mouthpiece and devoted Kerry-basher. It's no longer on the New York Post web site, but it is still on Free Republic. Might have something to do with why Chicken didn't include a link.

Actually, I got it from here:

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/07/joe_wilson_stil.html

But nice ASSumption.

So you got it from a different right-wing loon site. Do you have a point? Either way, you were apparently too ashamed to include a link (which is kind of dumb given that the story you quoted is itself an op-ed from a right-wing tabloid written by a career Republican mouthpiece. Hell, her first sentence is enough to totally discredit her as a real journalist: ""Bush-bashing ambassador", "so many holes in his story".) Not exactly a credible source of objective information.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...

:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.

She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.

On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."

She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.

Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Here, let me demonstrate how one posts links to substantiate their claim. It's a process you should learn:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

That was on July 14, 2003. Yet on May 6, 2003, a full two months prior, we get:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0506missing.htm

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted ? except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

Wilson leaked information that was still classified to Kristof.

I'll give you credit for finally -- finally -- trying to support your story with evidence. If you have a point in there, however, I'm missing it. I believe I've already acknowledged that the CIA report was classified, but Wilson did not leak the report. He told us about certain aspects of his trip to Niger. In order for your claim to be true, you need to show Wilson revealed information he was forbidden to discuss. Given that he did NOT sign a confidentiality agreement for the trip (per the Senate SCI report), I think that will be a bit of a challenge. If you have evidence showing otherwise, please share.

First of all, the confidentiality agreement statement in the SCI report concerns Wilson's "relationship" with the CIA, not the information he gathered.

Not so, it was more than that:

• "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.

Did not ask Wilson to keep his relationship with the CIA confidential and did not ask him to sign an NDA.

What is the context of that statement? It concerns Wilson's involvement with the CIA. How do you make the giant leap from that context to the assumption that not signing an NDA means Wilson could talk about anything concerning his trip?

As the SCI report also notes, Wilson did not have a formal security clearance but was given an operational clearance for the purpose of his trip to Niger. Receiving such a clearance requires signing a general NDA that prevents one from discussin classified information they come to know, so he was still governed by one concerning the release of classified information.

Speculative. No matter what the normal procedure may be, you do not know Wilson signed an NDA. In fact, the SSCI report clearly contradicts your speculation, explicitly stating he did not.

You HAVE to sign an NDA to get a security clearance. There is no speculation on that point. I went through it myself in the military when I had to have a security clearance. You do not get a security clearance AND the freedom to discuss the classified information you encounter. How could you even make sucha ridiculous claim?

Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.

Perhaps that is why the SSCI felt this was important enough to mention in their report, that it was a departure from normal procedure.

Now THAT'S speculation.

Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.

Second of all, did he release any classified information? He made specific comments about his findings. Is it really a stretch to believe those findings were classified, considering that's what the classified report was about, his findings?

Yes, it's very much a stretch. While we don't know for sure everything covered in the classified report, it is safe to assume it included more than Wilson's findings. For example, it almost certainly included the CIA's analysis of his findings, probably cross-referenced with related intel from other sources. Further, as I explained before, the fact that some of Wilson's specific findings might be considered classified does NOT suggest everything he found was classified. For example, Wilson's (hypothetical) meeting with covert sources would be classified, while his meetings with public sources might not be. In short, classified reports contain all kinds of unclassified information. We see this all the time when the government releases redacted documents, e.g., the SSCI report.

You are confused. We see that all the time because the government declassifies those portions of a report when they release it publicly. Wilson's CIA report still hasn't been declassified, therefore its entire contents are still secret. He is not allowed to speak of anything within that report, period.

More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.

Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.

btw, there was some noise about investigating whether Wilson leaked classified information himself by Long Island Rep Peter King. But the MSM disregarded it completely and so did the CIA.

Interesting. Any links to more information? I'm curious as to the specific classified information he thought Wilson leaked, and why neither he nor the CIA pursued it. Perhaps it was due to the lack of an NDA binding Wilson to silence.

Or perhaps the CIA didn't feel like opening that can-o-worms?

Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?

As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?

I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."

According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.