3.3999162478862 (2388)
Posted by sonny 02/25/2009 @ 16:35

Tags : cia, intelligence agencies, government, politics

News headlines
Italian spies to take stand at CIA kidnapping trial - EuropeNews
Italian spies will Wednesday begin answering charges of abducting an Egyptian imam from a Milan street as part of the CIA's covert programme of transferring terror suspects to countries known to practise torture. The landmark case involves 25 CIA...
Source: CIA Dissembles In Briefings - TPMMuckraker
By Zachary Roth - May 26, 2009, 6:32PM Yet more evidence that the CIA may not have been totally up front with Nancy Pelosi during that contested torture briefing from 2002... A former "deep-cover" CIA operative tells CQ's Jeff Stein that agency...
CIA's In-Q-Tel invests in Sonitus Medical -
Sonitus Medical Inc., a business working on a hearing aid that uses the teeth, got an investment from In-Q-Tel, an investment firm started by the CIA. San Mateo, Calif.-based Sonitus didn't say how much money In-Q-Tel invested....
Democrats' Assault On the CIA - Washington Post
It began with the release of the Justice Department memos -- a move opposed by CIA Director Leon Panetta along with four previous directors. Then, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. did not rule out Justice Department cooperation with foreign lawsuits...
Former CIA Official Warns Against LNG Terminal - WJZ
Read more in our Privacy Policy Opponents of the proposed LNG terminal in Sparrows Point have an ally fresh from the CIA, and he is warning the explosive power of a liquefied natural gas operation may be too good a target for terrorists to pass up....
State Of War Between Two Koreas After Armistice Ended - Prison
Despite Dutch authorities being deeply suspicious of Khan's activities as far back as 1975, the CIA prevented them from arresting him on two occasions. “The man was followed for almost ten years and obviously he was a serious problem....
Cheney and Rumsfeld pressured CIA to mislead Congress in the 1970s ... - Online Journal
By Margie Burns The first time Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pressured the CIA to mislead Congress was in 1975 and 1976, when Cheney was chief of staff to President Gerald Ford and Rumsfeld was Ford's secretary of defense....
Knowing the Future: CIA, 9/11, ufos, and the Extraterrestrial ... - American Chronicle
This "can neither confirm nor deny" escape clause is known as the "Glomar Response," named after the once super-secret CIA vessel used to recover a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine. According to a review of a previous and related Graham filing found at...
Liraz Charhi joins Plame drama "Fair Game" - Reuters
By Jay A. Fernandez The Israeli actress has been cast in "Fair Game," the Doug Liman-directed drama about outed CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Naomi Watts already has been cast as Plame. Sean Penn plays her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson....

CIA leak grand jury investigation

Karl Rove

CIA leak grand jury investigation (related to the "CIA leak scandal", also known as the "Plame affair") was a federal inquiry "into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee's identity," a possible violation of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 793.

The "CIA leak scandal", or the Plame affair", refers to a dispute stemming from allegations that one or more White House officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity as "Valerie Plame" to reporters.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate....

On October 1, 2003, Richard Armitage told both Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that he "was the inadvertent leak".

On September 26, 2003, at the request of the CIA, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft initially headed up the investigation. On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI, raising concerns of a conflict of interest. A 2 October 2003 New York Times article similarly connected Karl Rove to the matter and highlighted his prior employment in three previous political campaigns for Ashcroft. Ashcroft subsequently recused himself from the investigation, apparently at the end of December 2003.

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed Special Counsel on 30 December 2003 (Comey names Fitzgerald).

By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you 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, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

Fitzgerald began investigations into the leak working from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003.

Fitzgerald learned of Armitage's role in the leak "shortly after his appointment in 2003".

On October 31, 2003, a grand jury was sworn in and began taking testimony. A complete list of witnesses to testify there is not known, in part because Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations.

Some individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Fitzgerald interviewed both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush but not separately and not under oath.

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by Plame's identity being revealed.

In March 2004, the Special Counsel subpoenaed the telephone records of Air Force One.

Several journalists have testified on this matter.

Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek) and he has not been charged with contempt of court.

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to TIME reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in TIME, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time, then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper.

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph).

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier applied to conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question, a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer. According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.

New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who met with Lewis Libby on July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Plame affair, but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to confidential sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On 27 June 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, TIME Magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper, and Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury after receiving a waiver from his source. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to 29 September 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

In August 2005 the American Prospect magazine reported that Lewis Libby testified he had discussed Plame with Miller during a July 8, 2003, meeting. Libby signed a general waiver allowing journalists to reveal their discussions with him on this matter, but American Prospect reported that Miller refused to honor this waiver on the grounds that she considered it coerced. Miller had said she would accept a specific individual waiver to testify, but contends Libby had not given her one until late September 2005. In contrast, Libby's lawyer has insisted that he had fully released Miller to testify all along.

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A. My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative," as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.)... My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program... Although I was interested primarily in my area of expertise — chemical and biological weapons — my notes show that Mr. Libby consistently steered our conversation back to the administration's nuclear claims. His main theme echoed that of other senior officials: that contrary to Mr. Wilson's criticism, the administration had had ample reason to be concerned about Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on the regime's history of weapons development, its use of unconventional weapons and fresh intelligence reports. At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons. I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative... Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall.

On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses. Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.

On October 6, 2005, Fitzgerald recalled Karl Rove, for the fourth time, to take the stand before the grand jury investigating the leak of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald had indicated that the only remaining witnesses to call were Cooper and Miller before he would close his case.

On October 28, 2005, the grand jury issued a five-count indictment (PDF) against Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, on felony charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI and the grand jury investigating the matter.

Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

From January 20, 2001, to October 28, 2005, Libby served as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. After the indictment was released to the public, Libby resigned his position in the White House.

On November 3, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby entered a not guilty plea in front of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a former prosecutor who has spent two decades as a judge in the nation's capital.

After a six week break, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald presented information to a new grand jury on December 8, 2005.

Due to the huge amount of classified material that had been requested by Libby's defense, David Corn speculated that Libby was using Graymail as defense tactic. Libby had added the graymail expert John D. Cline to his defense team.

On March 17, 2006, Patrick Fitzgerald filed the government's response to a motion by Scooter Libby's defense team to dismiss the indictments.

Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President.

Karl Rove testified before the new grand jury for the fifth time in the case on April 26, 2006, and, on June 12, 2006, his attorney stated that Rove had been formally notified by Fitzgerald that Rove would not be charged with any crimes.

According to Mike Allen, in Time Magazine, Rove's attorney Robert D. Luskin told reporters that he received a fax from Fitzgerald indicating that "absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove." John Solomon of Associated Press reported that the news came by telephone rather than fax. The New York Times reported that the news was announced by Fitzgerald "in a letter to Mr. Luskin." Luskin's own public statement indicated only that he was "formally advised" of this news by Fitzgerald, and Luskin's office has so far refused to comment further on that statement.

The June 12, 2003, Washington Post article by Mr. Pincus (to whom both Mr. Wilson and the defendant spoke prior to publication of the article) is relevant because Mr. Pincus’ questions to the OVP sparked discussion within the OVP, including conversations between the defendant and the Vice President regarding how Mr. Pincus’ questions should be answered. It was during a conversation concerning Mr. Pincus’ inquiries that the Vice President advised the defendant that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. (To be clear, the government does not contend that the defendant disclosed the employment of Ms. Plame to Mr. Pincus, and Mr. Pincus’s article contains no reference to her or her employment.) The article by Mr. Pincus thus explains the context in which the defendant discussed Mr. Wilson’s wife’s employment with the Vice President. The article also served to increase media attention concerning the then-unnamed ambassador’s trip and further motivated the defendant to counter Mr. Wilson’s assertions, making it more likely that the defendant’s disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson’s wife were not casual disclosures that he had forgotten by the time he was asked about them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and before the grand jury.

Fitzgerald sought to compel Matt Cooper, a Time Magazine correspondent who had covered the story, to disclose his sources to a grand jury. After losing all legal appeals up through the Supreme Court, Time turned over Cooper's notes to the prosecutor. Cooper agreed to testify after receiving permission from his source, Karl Rove, to do so. Robert Luskin confirmed Rove was Cooper's source. A July 11, 2003, e=mail from Cooper to his bureau chief indicated that Rove had told Cooper that it was Wilson's wife who authorized her husband's trip to Niger, mentioning that she "apparently" worked at "the agency" on weapons of mass destruction issues. Newsweek reported that nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggested that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative, although Cooper's Time magazine article describing his grand jury testimony noted that Rove said, "I've already said too much." Neither Newsweek nor Time released the complete Cooper e-mail.

And I submit to Your Honor there is — as you can see, the credibility of Mr. Cooper with respect to his description that Mr. Libby confirmed M. Plame's employment by the C.I.A. is going to be very much at issue in this case. And that is what cases are all about, and we should be entitled to anything that Mr. Cooper has said ro that others have said or done, such as Mr. Massimo talking to Mr. Wilson on the basis of what Cooper said. And that kind of information is directly relevant to the cross-examination, and we submit that it should be enforced. And certainly we have established specificity with respec to that. The other thing I would say is this is the first I have heard that Time has a document that refers to Ms. Plame. Now, perhaps, that's Mr. Copper's communication with Mr. Massimo, or perhaps it is Mr. Massimo's notes with Mr. Wilson. I don't know, but certainly if there is a document that does refer to Ms. Plame prior to July 14, we submit that that's relevant and should be produced as well. That's all I have on Time and Cooper, Your Honor.

However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper’s documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment.

For the reasons discussed above, this Court will grant reporter Judith Miller’s motion to quash, and grant in part and deny in part the remaining motions. Therefore, at the appropriate times as designated in this opinion, those documents subject to production must be produced to the defendant so that they can be used as impeachment or contradiction evidence during the trial. In addition, based on the facts of this case, this Court declines to recognize a First Amendment reporters’ privilege. And, the Court concludes that any common law reporters’ privilege that may exist has been overcome by the defendant.

On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis reported in The New York Times that Richard Armitage has been confirmed to be the first and primary source of the CIA leak investigation. On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Valerie Plame's role as a CIA operative in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.

On September 6, 2006, The New York Times noted that in 2003, early in his investigation, Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the primary source of the leak. The Times raised questions as to why the investigation proceeded as long as it did.

Fitzgerald has issued no statement about Armitage's involvement.

The trial began on January 16, 2007.

Libby retains attorney Ted Wells of the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to represent him in the case. Wells is known for successfully defending Clinton Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy against a 30-count indictment and participating in the successful defense of former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan.

After Libby's motion to dismiss was denied, the press initially reported that he would testify at the trial. In February 2007, during the trial, however, numerous press reports stressed that whether or not he will testify was still uncertain, and, ultimately, he did not testify at trial.

The jury received the case for their deliberation on 21 February 2007.

After deliberating for ten days, the jury rendered its verdict at noon on March 6, 2007. It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him — two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators — and acquitted him on one count of making false statements. Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the convictions could result in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of one million US dollars. Given those non-binding guidelines, according to lawyer, author, New Yorker staff writer, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Anderson Cooper 360°, such a sentence could likely be between "one and a half to three years." Sentencing was scheduled for June 2007. His lawyers have announced their intention to seek a new trial and, if that attempt fails, to appeal Libby's conviction.

As reported in CNN Newsroom, and subsequently on Larry King Live on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on Scarborough Country), one juror — "Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat", who is a journalist and former reporter at The Washington Post and the author of a book on espionage and a novel — "said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe.... 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy'.... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'" Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.

Following the revelations in the Libby indictment, sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials urged President Bush to suspend Karl Rove's security clearance for his part in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.

On 22 December 2006, the Associated Press reported that AP and Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, have requested a federal court to force the CIA to release testimony records. The AP and Dow Jones allege that special prosecutor Fitzgerald never needed to subpoena the media's records, including those of the New York Times and Washington Post, because he knew the source of the leak all along.

Because the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch, some critics of the Bush Administration contend that the absence of rapid and effective action has been deliberate.

General Paul E. Vallely has criticized Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on FOX News for not contacting a number of people who publicly stated they knew of Plame's job at the CIA.

General Vallely has been criticized by some for allegedly lying about his part in the affair. Vallely has claimed that Joe Wilson informed him that his wife was a covert agent, but did not reveal this until more than two years after the fact, and a year and a half after the investigation had begun.

The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent — and mostly erroneous — allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest.... That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source. Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement.

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004, you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States. In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information." Troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration. Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office. The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters — and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else. That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.

As of March 1, 2007, a feature film based on the lives of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson is under development at Warner Brothers.

Another film closely paralleling the case is Nothing But the Truth, directed by Rod Lurie and starring Kate Beckinsale as a reporter who is imprisoned for revealing the identity of a CIA agent (played by Vera Farmiga), but not the sources of her information. The movie is currently scheduled for release on September 19, 2008.

To the top

CIA leak scandal timeline

Floyd Abrams represented Judith Miller

The CIA leak scandal timeline (also known as the CIA leak case timeline, the Plamegate scandal timeline, and the Plame affair timeline) pertains to the controversy leading to the CIA leak grand jury investigation and ensuing criminal trial United States v. Libby, following Robert Novak's public disclosure of the then-still classified covert identity of United States Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson (known as the "CIA leak scandal" and also known as "Plamegate" and the "Plame affair").

Valerie Plame Wilson is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, author of a controversial op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" published in The New York Times on July 3, 2003, questioning the accuracy of the George W. Bush administration's rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Responding to that op-ed, Robert Novak publicly revealed Wilson's wife to be a CIA "operative" named "Valerie Plame" in his Washington Post column on July 14, 2003.

Between 2003 and 2007, the United States Department of Justice directed the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, headed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, to conduct a special investigation into the original source for the leak of Plame's then-still classified CIA covert identity and any possible violations of criminal statutes requiring government officials to use classified information responsibly and to testify truthfully in such federal investigations. The CIA leak grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment and conviction of Lewis Libby in United States v. Libby and the later commutation of his prison sentence by United States President George W. Bush.

In late August 2006, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage revealed publicly that Novak had based his disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's CIA identity on then still-classified information that Armitage initially gave him while Armitage was still serving in the State Department.

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

At least three European intelligence were aware of potential illegal trade in Nigerien uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The second "outing" occurred when the C.I.A. sent confidential documents to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana. The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government but apparently not and their contents gleaned by Cuban agents.

B. There is Ample Evidence On The Public Record To Cast Considerable Doubt That a Crime Has Been Committed.

According to the news agencies, there was no need to compel these reporters to divulge their sources because it was unlikely that a crime had been committed.

BLITZER: I think he's being very cautious now, given some of the missteps in the past. But do you have confidence in (weapons inspector) David Kay, that they know what they're doing?

JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER U.S. ACTING AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: Oh, absolutely, and I've had confidence in — that we would find weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction programs from the very beginning of the run-up to the war in Iraq. 687, the initial U.N. resolution dealing with weapons of mass destruction, demanded compliance, and it had as its objective disarmament. We had not yet achieved disarmament, so it was perfectly appropriate to continue to try and gather together the international consensus to disarm Saddam and his programs.

I think we'll find chemical weapons. I think we'll find biological precursors that may or may not have been weaponized. And I think we will find a continuing interest of — on nuclear weapons. The question really is whether it met the threshold test of imminent threat to our own national security or even the test of grave and gathering danger.

The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal TIME magazine email, and TIME reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. Once Karl Rove's involvement was disclosed, the White House refused to comment on the ongoing investigation and stated that they would fire anyone convicted of criminal activity. Critics find an intent to protect Mr. Rove in the new specificity, while supporters say this is indicative of was what was meant all along.

On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that "f anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration", adding that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that "the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics".

On 10 October 2003, after the Justice Department began its formal investigation into the leak, McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor two other officials whom he had personally questioned — Elliott Abrams, a national security aide, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff — were involved and that anyone who was involved in leaking classified information would be fired.

On 11 July 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who had since become a grand jury witness himself, refused at a press conference to answer dozens of questions, repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration had made a decision not to comment on an "ongoing criminal investigation" involving White House staff. McClellan declined to answer whether Rove had committed a crime. McClellan also declined to repeat prior categorical denials of Rove's involvement in the leak, nor would he state whether Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak. Although Democratic critics called for Rove's dismissal, or at the very least immediate suspension of Rove's security clearances and access to meetings in which classified material was under discussion, Rove remained working in the White House.

On 18 July 2005, after having brushed off similar questions about the Rove scandal for nearly a week, President Bush stated that "f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." This was widely interpreted as a retraction of multiple earlier promises to fire anyone involved in the leak itself. Others counter this view by relying on the one previous mention of illegality, the September 30, 2003 remarks, to suggest that criminality was a prerequisite all along. Many news outlets speculated that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee; if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status before speaking to journalists, however, Rove could face far more serious charges. A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Special Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular top secret State Department report naming Plame may have been the source of Rove's information. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the report in Africa in the company of the President in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's op-ed piece. Powell is reported to have testified before the grand jury.

White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card was informed by then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales around 8:00 p.m. on September 29, 2003, that the Department of Justice was beginning an investigation of the Plame affair, and that the next morning, Gonzalez would order the White House staff to preserve all documents that may be related to the case. Gonzalez has stated that he did not send the order to the staff because of the lateness of the hour, but speculation has suggested that he notified Card in order to give him a twelve hour head start before destruction of any incriminating documents would be prohibited. This was unusual, according to the Washington Post, since the White House Staff is usually quickly notified of any investigations so as to safeguard the integrity of any documents, emails or memoranda that might be required for the investigation.

On July 15, 2005, ninety one Democratic members of Congress sign a petition calling for Karl Rove to explain his role in the Plame affair, or to resign. Thirteen Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee call for hearings on the matter.

A Resolution of Inquiry has been offered by Rush D. Holt, Jr. (D-NJ) and John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Bush Administration release all documents concerning the exposure of Ms. Plame.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have authorized the Library of Congress to research legal precedent for the impeachment of White House staffers.

A series of nationwide town hall meetings was scheduled for July 23, 2005 to review the Downing Street memo, the Plame affair, and the situation in Iraq.

Twenty-six Democratic Senators, including seven members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have issued a public statement authored by Senator John Kerry, calling for Congressional hearings to investigate the Plame leak.

On November 1, 2005, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a closed session, for only the 54th time since 1929, to discuss the Plame affair and the Bush Administration's role in pre-Iraq War intelligence.

On November 5, 2005, Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) wrote a column describing his view of the Plame affair as a "sting operation" by the Wilsons designed to pull down a sitting president. Miller claims that Joseph Wilson played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger, publishing his findings in an op-ed piece.

Former DCI George Tenet told a Senator that he was "furious" with the Bush Administration about the leak in 2003.

On 22 July 2005, Johnson, along with former CIA case officers David MacMichael and James Marcinkowski, former senior CIA analyst and senior fellow of the Center for International Policy Melvin A. Goodman, and retired Army colonel and DIA officer W. Patrick Lang, testified at a Senate Hearing on the consequences of the leak.

Fred W. Rustmann, "a covert CIA agent from 1966 to 1990", was briefly a supervisor of Valerie Plame Wilson during her early career at the CIA, although he left the agency before she went undercover: "'She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,' he told The Washington Times. 'Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. . . . The agency never changed her cover status.'" It is not clear how Mr. Rustmann, who left the Agency in 1990, would know this, since Plame is said to have gone undercover after 1990. And investigations by the FBI and by journalists revealed Rustmann's comments to be "baseless"; friends and neighbors of the Wilsons had no idea that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA before reading about it in Novak's column.

MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative — it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime. MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's — Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

On 6 April 2006, it was widely reported that George W. Bush authorized Libby to disclose the prior-to-then classified October 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons program to Judith Miller to rebut charges by Joe Wilson, according to documents filed in federal court detailing Libby's grand jury testimony. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that the president authorized the declassification to rebut charges by war critics, but declined to specifically address Libby's testimony.

It was during a conversation concerning Mr. Pincus’ inquiries that the Vice President advised the defendant that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. (To be clear, the government does not contend that the defendant disclosed the employment of Ms. Plame to Mr. Pincus, and Mr. Pincus’s article contains no reference to her or her employment.) The article by Mr. Pincus thus explains the context in which the defendant discussed Mr. Wilson’s wife’s employment with the Vice President. The article also served to increase media attention concerning the then-unnamed ambassador’s trip and further motivated the defendant to counter Mr. Wilson’s assertions, making it more likely that the defendant’s disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson’s wife were not casual disclosures that he had forgotten by the time he was asked about them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and before the grand jury.

At the end of August in 2006, Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, acknowledged that he initially disclosed Plame's employment with the CIA to Robert Novak. According to the report by Fox News Armitage's disclosure "suggests" that the Bush administration was not involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity to the press to discredit Joseph C. Wilson, as the Wilsons and their supporters still claim.

To the top

1993 CIA shootings

The CIA Memorial Wall at their Langley headquarters, on which Bennett and Darling are memorialized

An attack took place on January 25, 1993 near the entrance of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia where two CIA employees were murdered and three others wounded. The perpetrator, Mir Aimal Kasi, shot CIA employees in their cars as they were waiting at a stoplight.

Kasi fled the country and was placed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, sparking a four year international manhunt. He was captured by FBI agents in Pakistan in 1997 and rendered back to the United States to stand trial. He admitted that he shot the victims of the attack, and was subsequently found guilty of capital and first-degree murder, and executed by lethal injection in 2002.

At around 8 a.m. on January 25, 1993, Kasi stopped his brown station wagon behind a number of vehicles waiting at a red traffic light on the eastbound side of Route 123, Fairfax County. The vehicles were waiting to make a left turn into the main entrance of CIA headquarters. Kasi emerged from his vehicle with an AK-47 and proceeded to move among the lines of vehicles, firing into them. Within seconds, he had killed Lansing H. Bennett MD, 66, and Frank Darling, 28. Three others were left with gunshot wounds. Darling was shot first and later received additional gunshot wounds to the head after Kasi shot the other victims.

During his later confession, Kasi said that he'd only stopped firing because "there wasn't anybody else left to shoot", and that he only shot male passengers because "it would be against religion to shoot females".

Kasi climbed back into his vehicle and drove to a nearby park. After 90 minutes of waiting, it became clear that he was not being actively sought and so he drove back to his Reston apartment. He hid the assault rifle in a green plastic bag under a sofa, went to a McDonald's for something to eat, and booked himself into a Days Inn for the night. The CNN news reports he watched made it clear that police had misidentified his vehicle and did not have his license plate number. The next morning, he took a flight to Quetta, Pakistan. According to Kasi, he killed American CIA people because, "I was real angry with the policy of the U.S. government in the Middle East, particularly toward the Palestinian people," Kasi said in a prison interview with CNN affiliate WTTG.

An investigative task force (named "Langmur" for "Langley murders") was drawn together from both the FBI and local Fairfax County police. They began sifting through recent AK-47 purchases in Maryland and Virginia—there had been at least 1,600 over the previous year alone. Mir Aimal Kasi's name was on the sales slip from a gun store in Chantilly, where he had exchanged another gun for the AK-47 just three days before the shootings.

This information provided the first solid lead in the investigation when Kasi's roommate, Zahed Mir, reported him missing two days after the shootings. He also told police how Kasi would get angry watching CNN reports of attacks on Muslims — in particular, Kasi would later cite the US attacks on Iraq, Israeli killings of Palestinians, and CIA involvement in Muslim countries. Although Mir didn't think much of it at the time, Kasi had said he wanted to do "something big", with possible targets of the White House, the Israeli Embassy and the CIA.

A police search of Kasi's apartment turned up the hidden AK-47 under the couch. Ballistics tests confirmed it was the weapon used in the shootings, and Kasi became the chief suspect of the investigation.

Kasi was listed as one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. The search was focused on Pakistan, and agents spent the next four years following hundreds of leads, taking them as far afield as Thailand, but to no avail. Kasi would later reveal he had spent this time being sheltered by fellow Pashtun tribesmen, in the border regions of Afghanistan, making only brief visits to Pakistan.

In May 1997, an informant walked into the US consulate in Karachi and claimed he could help lead them to Kasi. As proof, he showed a copy of a driver license application made by Kasi under a false name but bearing his photograph. Apparently, the Pashtun tribals who had been sheltering Kasi were now prepared to accept the multi-million dollar reward offer for his capture. Other sources claim they were pressured by the Pakistani government.

Kasi was in the Afghan border regions, so the informant was told to lure Kasi into Pakistan where he could be more easily apprehended. Kasi was tempted with a lucrative business offer—smuggling Russian electronic goods into Pakistan—which brought him to Dera Ghazi Khan, in the Punjab province of Pakistan, where he checked into a room at Shalimar Hotel.

At 4 a.m. on the morning of June 15, 1997, an armed team of FBI agents, working with the Pakistani ISI, raided Kasi's hotel room. His fingerprints were taken on the scene, confirming his identity.

Kasi was transferred to a disputed location—US authorities claim it was a holding facility run by Pakistani authorities, while Pakistani sources claim it was the US embassy in Islamabad — before being flown to the US on June 17 in a C-141 transport.

During the flight, Kasi made a full oral and written confession to the FBI.

On February 16, 1993, Kasi, then a fugitive, had been charged in absentia. The charges involved capital murder of Darling, murder of Bennett, and three counts of malicious wounding for the other victims, along with related firearms charges.

Kasi was tried by a Virginia state court jury over a period of ten days in November 1997, on a plea of not guilty to all charges. The jury found him guilty, and fixed punishment for the capital murder charge at death. On February 4, 1998, Kasi was sentenced to death for the capital murder of Darling, who was shot at the beginning of the attack and again after the other victims had been shot. Among his other punishments were a life sentence for the first-degree murder of Bennett, multiple 20-year sentences for the malicious woundings, and fines totalling $600,000.

On November 12, 1997, four US oil executives and their Pakistani taxi driver were shot dead in Karachi, in what was described as a deliberate response to Kasi's guilty verdict.

Kasi was executed by lethal injection on November 14, 2002, at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia.

The two fatalities of Kasi's attack were Lansing H. Bennett M.D., 66, and Frank Darling, 28, both CIA employees. Bennett, with experience as a physician, was working as an intelligence analyst assessing the health of foreign leaders. Darling worked in covert operations.

The three people wounded in the attack were Calvin Morgan, 61, an engineer; Nicholas Starr, 60, a CIA analyst; and Stephen E. Williams, 48, an AT&T employee.

Bennett and Darling were memorialized as the 69th and 70th entries on the CIA's "memorial wall" of stars in the foyer of the Langley headquarters building, although President Clinton, in an address to the CIA, attributed the two individuals as the 55th and 56th stars.

The Route 123 Memorial, consisting of a granite wall and two benches facing each other near the site of the shooting, is dedicated to Bennett and Darling. This memorial is illumnated at night. The memorial is not at the exact location of the shooting due to traffic reasons.

The memorial was dedicated May 24, 2002.

Bennett has had a forest renamed in his honor—the Lansing Bennett Forest in Duxbury, Massachusetts, where he was formerly chair of the Duxbury Conservation Commission.

Bennett is buried in Dennis Village Cemetery, Route 6A, north of Bourne, Massachusetts.

To the top

MOS Technology CIA

The 6526/8520 Complex Interface Adapter (CIA) was an integrated circuit made by MOS Technology. It served as a I/O port controller for the 6502 family of microprocessors, providing for parallel and serial I/O capabilities as well as timers and a Time-of-Day (TOD) clock. The device's most prominent use was in the Commodore 64, Commodore 128(D), and Amiga home computers, each of which included two CIA chips.

The CIA had two 8-bit bidirectional parallel I/O ports. Each port had a corresponding Data Direction Register, which allowed each data line to be individually set to input or output mode. A read of these ports always returned the status of the individual lines, regardless of the data direction that had been set.

An internal bidirectional 8-bit shift register enabled the CIA to handle serial I/O. The chip could accept serial input clocked from an external source, and could send serial output clocked with one of the built-in programmable timers. An interrupt was generated whenever an 8-bit serial transfer had completed. It was possible to implement a simple "network" by connecting the shift register and clock outputs of several computers together.

Two dedicated control lines (/FLAG and /PC) were implemented to allow coordination between multiple CIA chips. These lines, along with 8 of the 16 available parallel port data lines, made it possible to use the CIA as a simple, Centronics-compatible line driver.

Two programmable interval timers were available, each with sub-microsecond precision. Each timer consisted of a 16-bit read-only presettable down counter and a corresponding 16-bit write-only latch. Whenever a timer was started, the timer's latch was automatically copied into its counter, and the counter would then decrement with each clock cycle until underflow, at which an interrupt would be generated.

The timer could run in either "one-shot" mode, halting after the first interrupt, or "continuous" mode, reloading the latch value again and starting the timer cycle anew. In addition to generating interrupts, the timer output could also be gated to the second I/O port.

As configured in the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128, the CIA's timing was controlled by the phase two system clock, nominally one MHz. This meant that the timers decremented at approximately one microsecond intervals, the exact time period being determined by whether the system used the NTSC or PAL video standard. In the C-128, clock stretching was employed so the CIA's timing was unaffected by whether the system was running in SLOW or FAST mode.

It was possible to generate relatively long timing intervals by programming timer B to count timer A underflows. If both timers were loaded with the maximum interval value of 65,535, a timing interval of one hour, 11 minutes, 34 seconds would result.

A real-time clock is incorporated in the CIA, providing a timekeeping device more conducive to human needs than the microsecond precision of the interval timers. The TOD clock consists of four read/write registers: hours (with bit 7 acting as the AM/PM flag), minutes, seconds and tenths of a second. All registers read out in BCD format, thus simplifying the encoding/decoding process.

Setting the time involves writing the appropriate BCD values into the registers. A write access to the hours register will completely halt the clock. The clock will not start again until a value has been written into the tenths register. Owing to the order in which the registers appear in the system's memory map, a simple loop is all that is required to write the registers in the correct order. It should be noted that it is permissible to write to only the tenths register to "nudge" the clock into action, in which following a hardware reset, the clock will start at 1:00:00.0.

In addition to its timekeeping features, the TOD can be configured to act as an alarm clock, by arranging for it to generate an interrupt request at any desired time. Due to a bug in many 6526s (see also errata below), the alarm IRQ would not always occur when the seconds component of the alarm time is exactly zero. The workaround is to set the alarm's tenths value to 0.1 seconds.

The TOD clock's internal circuitry is designed to be driven by an AC input signal, either 50 or 60 Hz, as would be derived from the mains power source, resulting in a stable timekeeper with little long-term drift. The ability to work with both power line frequencies allowed a single version of the 6526 to be used in computers using either the NTSC or PAL video standards.

The 8520 revision of the CIA, used in the Amiga, modified the time-of-day clock to be a 24-bit binary counter, replacing the BCD format of the 6526. Other behavior was similar, however.

The CIA was available in 1 MHz (6526) and 2 MHz (6526A) versions. The form factor was a JEDEC-standard 40-pin ceramic or plastic DIP. The 8520 CIA, with its modified time-of-day clock, was used in the Amiga computers.

Commodore made a reduced (just 4 registers) CIA for the 1571CR called 5710.

In addition to the aforementioned alarm clock interrupt bug, many CIAs exhibited a defect in which the part would fail to generate a timer B hardware interrupt if the interrupt control register (ICR) was read one or two clock cycles before the time when the interrupt should have actually occurred. This defect, as well as logic errors in the kernal, caused frequent pseudo-RS-232 errors in the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128 computers when running at higher baud rates.

To the top

Source : Wikipedia