Friday, October 28, 2005

TREASONGATE: Bitchslapping the media


was on Larry King yesterday. Check out his unsourced spin. And I quote:

"And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge Ames or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage."

Bob doesn't even need a source? What's his source? Who told him this? Nobody else has seen the "holy grail" of Treasongate documents -- a CIA damage report on the Plame/Brewster Jennings outing -- but Bob just does his little dance on the airwaves as if Deep Throat was tonguing his floppy ears again.

Bob Woodward, you're a fucking fraud, mate. A fucking fraud. He doesn't even front a source. Larry King let him get away with that?

Rumour cake makers.
Piss off, all of you. Your mates are going down.

And they say the blogs aren't really news? Woodward ought to work on a DC based graphic novel. Fiction master. He's full of shit.


WALTER PINCUS from The Washington Post for outing Brewster Jennings as a CIA front and risking the lives of all who were involved with it... My man ANTIARISTO just tied him up in little knots with his
Treachery From The Washington Post report (see yesterday's blog below).

I want to add a few comments on that:

- Pincus outed Brewster Jennings on October 3, 2003, almost three months after Plame's name and identity were leaked.

There's a pattern here that's interesting. First Novak outed Plame's name, but it was David Corn -- a few days later -- who outed her covert status.

Then on the same day -- October 3, 2003 -- Novak outed Brewster Jennings name, but Pincus outed BJ as a CIA front.

Pincus and others are trying to spin it that Brewster Jennings was outed when Plame listed them as her employer on a 1999 tax return. However...

- Brewster Jennings was a front "company". You can't be a CIA "front company" unless you're a company. Duh.

- The identity of Brewster Jennings as a "CIA asset" wasn't exposed until Pincus spilled it on Ocotber 3, 2003.

This was espionage which resulted in the exposure of a CIA asset working on WMD.

- Who were the "administration officials" that confirmed Brewster Jennings was a CIA front?

From the Ocotber 3, 2003 WAPO:

"After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA."

- Why are administration officials going to Walter Pincus with Plame's tax returns? And why is pincus publishing the identity of a CIA front company?

Isn't that an Espionage Act violation?

This is big, huge story.

The front company was supposed to be used by Plame as cover and that's why she listed it on her tax return. It was a FRONT.

The illegal use of this information by Pincus to out Brewster Jennings identity as a CIA asset was treason.

Go get them Fitz.

This is a big story. Nobody is reporting it but Citizenspook (via Antiaristo)

And you can be sure that when it does finally break out -- like the Espionage Act analysis and the Comey/GAO delegation of authority stories -- nobody in the MM and most in the main stream blogosphere will ignore that CS broke the news -- and more important -- that CS covers the legalities involved with pinpoint accuracy.

This blog has been way out in front educating the blogosphere on these issues and it pisses me off to see massive blogs misleading their readers as to the law.
CS has extensive, documented and thoroughly researched legal analysis painstakenly translated into a form of English non-lawyers can understand.

When attorneys who do not have the skills or passion for the law that I do attempt to give legal lessons by watering down the analysis they do a great disservice to their readers. Which leads me to:


Firedoglake is an ex-prosecutor and defense attorney who provides legal analysis which is sometimes interesting. But their most recent legal reporting has been defective, especially as it pertains specifically to some of my work on the "Felony Murder Rule" and the power of the federal Grand Jury.

A Firedoglake reader asked Red to comment about my report. Before I quote Red directly on their response to my report, let's take a look at Red's "Untying A Few Legal Knots" about how a "creative prosecutor" might conduct an investigation:

"In my experience, the people who complain about a prosecutor being creative are criminal defense attorneys and family members of the people indicted. In this case, it's GOP strategists, who haven't complained at all about the "creative" use of detaining people of interest for terrorism cases without any hearing, any legal representation or any due process for months. Ahem.

"Prosecutors are limited by the laws as written by Congress. However, if someone has broken a law, and is charged with that particular conduct, the prosecutor should not be castigated for charging the violation simply because other prosecutors are either too lazy, too uneducated, or too busy to use prosecutions for that law themselves -- even prosecutors sometimes get into a rut in terms of what they do and don't charge. A good prosecutor avails herself of all the laws, not just a select few." (Emphasis added.)

That's interesting, Red. Conider now my report on the Felony Murder Rule which makes the case for State court prosecutions of the Bush crime family for the murder of American soldiers resulting from the felony fraud perpetrated upon congress, the military and the American people in their bogus case for the Iraq War. State court convictions would be exempt from the Presidential pardon power, but Red fails to mention that aspect of things. Ahem?

Read my report for the full legal details, but the short version goes like this: all states have a felony murder rule which means that those who are involved in committing a felony can be prosecuted for murder if anybody gets killed as a result of the underlying felony. I thoroughly addressed every aspect of this procedure as well as jurisdictional issues in my report.

Here's what

Reddhead had to say about it:

Anon -- I think that would be a substantial stretch, given the budget constraints, overwork issues and enormous constitutional arguments that would have to be overcome, not to mention some questions on jurisdiction and immunity from prosecution issues. I think most state prosecutors would be reluctant, to be honest, and I don't see how it would be likely. It's an intriguing intellectual exercise, but not particularly practical from the small-town, real-world state prosecutor sort of perspective. At least, in my experience, anyway.ReddHedd

Homepage 10.26.05 - 11:18 am #

What a fucking hypocrite you are. Look how that statement contrasts with Red's comments about a "creative prosecutor".

Intriguing intellectual exercise?

2000 people are dead, Red. The pardon is going to be used. If SCOTUS allows that to happen, then the felony murder rule is the only chance these victims will have for justice.

Time contraints? Budget?

Who's fucking side are you on, FDL? I'm really starting to wonder.

Red provides no direct commentary about the legal aspects of my report and the various case law cited, just a blanket diss on the theory.

Red, I'll debate you and destroy you on this. Anytime, any blog.

Red also bumbled through an explanation of the federal grand jury recently but failed to mention anything about the power of the grand jury to present indictments on its own accord despite the prosecutor's wishes. And Red offers nothing about "run away grand juries" either.

If you want an in depth analysis of the federal Grand Jury's history and true power as the FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government, then read
Citizen Spook's Grand Jury report .... a must read for anybody who is seriously interested in educating their fellow citizens as to the best strategy for us to become the actual custodians of power over the Government of We The People.

BITCH SLAP #4: Those Who Are Saying Fitz Can't Prosecute on The Niger Documents.

Firedoglake gets another bitchslap -- albeit this is only part of a collective bitch slap -- for whining about the following NY Times article instead of doing something to counter its propaganda:

Can we just say the timing on this one is fucked? Just up from the
NYT, an article by Doug Jehl on the FBI counterintelligence case into the Niger documents:

The continuing inquiry into the source of the forged documents has been conducted separately from the investigation by the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the leak case, which has to do with whether Bush administration officials committed crimes related to disclosing the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer.

Law enforcement officials say they do not believe that the two issues are related.

I am so not happy about having THIS thrown at me just as I was getting ready for a good night's sleep before tomorrow's whatever-it-may-bring.

- Why doesn't Hamsher counter this spin by quoting the
UPI story which sources NATO officials who say Fitzgerald asked for and received, from Italian authorities, the dossier on the Niger documents?

Why is Jane Hamsher so worried about this report by the New York Times? Like they've been credible through the Treasongate festival? Didn't they report last week that Cheney was interviewed under oath when everybody and his pet fucking rock knew that wasn't the case. And then there's the Judy Miller fiasco.

And another point that the prestigious folk at Firedoglake have forgot to mention -- FITZGERALD WEARS TWO HATS.

- He's the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
- He's the special prosecutor in the Plame affair.

If he finds illegal activity concerning the Niger documents, and for whatever reason such crimes do not fall within his delegation of authority as Special Prosecutor, there's no reason why he can't investigate those crimes while wearing his US Attorney hat. After all, FDL, that's what US Attorney's do.

They prosecute Federal crimes.

I hope this lifts your spirits, Jane.

But if it doesn't then have a look at
TREASONGATE: NIGER DOCUMENT FRAUD -- Wilson And Plame May Be On Fitzgerald's Radar For Treason Related To The Niger Document Conspiracy which discusses the most likely scenario which would allow Fitz to investigate and prosecute those involved with the Niger document fraud.

by Citizen Spoook